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) 02:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language to Category:Native American actors

Nominator's rationale: Merge. To what extent to meet the criterion? Seems to be overcategorization. Mayumashu (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge we generally do not categorize actors by language performed in. Since actors do not develop their dialogue in most cases the language they are performing in is not really telling us much about them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and repurpose to Category:Actors performing in Native American languages. It is evidcnet that the typical English-speaking Hollywood actor would be unable to perform in a native language. The ability to do so is thus a significant characteristic. I recall a recent diuscussion concerning Malayam cinema. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we are talking about theatric performance, where performers perform lines. And a question in any case is how much of a native language (how many line) would qualify? Mayumashu (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2013 (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) 02:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hualap actors to Category:Hualap people and Category:Native American actors

Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OC. This is no Category:Native American actors by tribe category tree. Nor do I think we need one - overcat. Mayumashu (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see a problem. Does this mean "tribe" as in a government institution recognized by the US gov't or does it mean "tribe" in the sense of an ethnic group? The Blackfoot are a people (or peoples), but they are represented by one "tribe" in the US, the Blackfoot Nation, and three "bands" in Canada. Therefore a Category:Blackfoot actor is not nessisarily a Native American actor. Same for Iroqouis actors, Cree actors, etc. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's just one actor listed and he is, according to his WP bio, a member of the American Hualap tribe. Mayumashu (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more, I agree. Delete. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 January 2013 (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, without prejudice to the future re-creation/discussion of Category:16th-century Jewish physicians of Italy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging

• Category:16th-century Jewish physicians of England to Category:16th-century Jewish physicians, Category:16th-century English medical doctors and Category:English Jews
• Category:16th-century Jewish physicians of Italy to Category:16th-century Jewish physicians, Category:16th-century Italian physicians and Category:Italian Jews
• Category:16th-century Jewish physicians of Portugal to Category:16th-century Jewish physicians, Category:16th-century Portuguese physicians and Category:Portuguese Jews
• Category:16th-century Jewish physicians of Spain to Category:16th-century Jewish physicians, Category:16th-century Spanish physicians and Category:Spanish Jews

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Just a few bios listed for each of these triple intersections. Mayumashu (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but consider keeping Category:16th-century Jewish physicians of Italy as a subcategory; if I recall correctly there were a great many Jewish physicians in 16th century Italy, much more than those listed there currently. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 23:27, 6 January 2013 (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) 02:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Battlefield-range ballistic missiles to Category:Tactical ballistic missiles

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; "battlefield-range" and "tactical" mean exactly the same thing in this context. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 23 December 2012 (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) 02:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Quasiballistic missiles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC; uses a somewhat nebulous definition for inclusion, and a number of its contents don't mention the term in their articles. In addition, all contents are already in Category:Theatre ballistic missiles. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 23 December 2012 (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: administrative close: consensus already implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Meteorite journals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Meteoritics is a subdiscipline of planetary sciences and this cat is therefore a subcat of Category:Planetary science journals. As there are (at least at this time) no journals that cover meteoritics exclusively, all journals in currently in this cat are also categorized in this parent cat. The parent cat contains just 5 other articles (for a total of 8, including these three). The "Meteorite journals" cat therefore is completely superfluous and should be deleted. If the result of this discussion would be to keep the cat, it should be renamed "Meteoritics journals", in keeping with naming conventions in the rest of the tree (naming journals after the field they cover, not the subject matter of this field; hence: "Zoology journals" and not "Animal journals"). Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's useful in Category:Meteorites, which is one of those that has only key articles in the root category (two in this case) the rest being in sub-categories. The proposed renaming seems reasonable. -Arb. (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sounds to me that you need a category "meteorite publications", which would have more potential than "meteoritics journals", because it could also contain magazines, websites, or books. It would remain outside of the journals tree, but be an integral part of the meteorites tree. Being more inclusive, it would not remain just a subset of "planetary science journals". --Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Planetary science journals. It is not large enough to be worth subdividing out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the solution proposed by Randykitty. "Meteoritics publications" could also include some important catalogs and online databases. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Meteoritics publications", outside the journals category tree, will work. -Arb. (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a consensus so I've gone ahead and implemented it. Category:Meteorite journals now redirects to Category:Meteoritics publications. Neither is in the journals tree.

Now we just need a friendly Admin to close this discussion. Nice doing business with you all. -Arb. (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2013 (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) 02:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Religion-related WikiProjectsTaoism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm unsure what purpose this category is intended to serve. The title doesn't make much sense and both Category:Religion-related WikiProjects and Category:WikiProject Taoism have already been created. SuperMarioMan 16:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Evidently created in error. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 23 December 2012 (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) 02:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American boxers of French descent to Category:American boxers and Category:American people of French descent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge This is not a meaningful intersection since ethnic or national origin has no impact on a boxer's ability or style. In any case, the two current entries are dubious since the article on Richie Lamontagne does not mention his French heritage (and given his name, it's tempting to guess that he could be of Canadian rather than French descent) while categorizing Valger as a boxer of French heritage is a bit of a stretch: he was indeed born in France but from Russian Jewish parents and emigrated to the US as a child. Pichpich (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Ancestry cats should not be divided by occupation - next to no meaningful connenction in the case of most people. Mayumashu (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as a trivial intersect category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2012 (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:Amazons (Greek mythology). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Greek mythological Amazons to Category:Amazons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, the word Amazons is commonly applied to Greek Amazons, other dab articles have slightly different titles. Brandmeister^talk 11:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Amazons (Greek mythology), to maintain disambiguation. Mayumashu (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Amazons (Greek mythology) since we have a disambiguation for Amazon. It is best not to assume that a category name can be easily assumed to direct to the primary meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2012 (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 (as noted, merging would appear to be redundant in this case). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Members of Parliament convicted of expenses offences to Category:United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

Nominator's rationale: Rename although I'm not even convinced that this deserves a category. If it does, then it really needs a better title since we should at the very least indicate which Parliament we're talking about. Moreover the current sentence introducing the category makes it clear that it's only intended to include members of parliament convicted as a result of this specific scandal. Pichpich (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Category:British politicians convicted of crimes does not need to be split into tiny subcats. (All the articles are already in at least one subcat of Category:British politicians convicted of crimes so no merge is needed.) Oculi (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:British politicians convicted of crimes. the parent category is not large enough to justify the category division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2012 (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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People in the history of Brazil ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:People in the history of Afghanistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose merging Category:People in the history of the Maratha Empire to Category:People of the Maratha Empire
• Propose merging Category:People in the history of Maharashtra to Category:People from Maharashtra

Nominator's rationale: As another followup to this nomination, I'm planning to delete these as I've deleted the other "People in the history of (X)" categories in recent discussions. The Brazil category's contents can go into Category:Brazilian people, and any non-Brazilians can go into Category:History of Brazil; similarly with the Afghanistan category. The two Maratha Empire categories overlap. Those in the Maharashtra category that are not from Maharashtra can go into Category:History of Maharashtra. Obviously, if there's a groundswell against this plan, I won't go ahead with it.--- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging/deleting. Makes sense. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought folks said in a prior CfD that biography articles shouldn't go in main History cats. If we dump a bunch of bios for (for example) non-Brazilians into Category:History of Brazil, it's going to make a mess of the main History cats, which was the entire reason "People in the history of Foo" cats were created. If you have to scrap these cats, at least don't dump a bunch of bios back in the main History cats that I and others have worked to clean. If there's a more elegant solution to cat'ing non-Foo people in the history of Foo, I'm open to it, but up-cat'ing a bunch of random people distracts from the articles covering significant historical events. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first two, merge last per nom. However the third should be renamed Category:Maratha Empire people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2012 (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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Montreal Impact (NASL) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (A-League) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (USISL A-League) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (USL A-League) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (APSL) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (NPSL) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (USL First Division) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (USSF Division 2) players to Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011) players
• Propose merging Category:Montreal Impact (MLS) players to Category:Montreal Impact players

Nominator's rationale: I've seen a lot of over categorization these past couple of months and I'll confess that I did part of that. Anyway, I've been thinking about how I want to sort this part out, how it should be sorted out, etc. All the Montreal Impact stuff from 1992-2011 should be moved/merged into one category and also subcatigorized into Category:Montreal Impact (1992–2011). Just like what we did with Category:Seattle Sounders (1994–2008) and Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010). You can also see that I'm considering the Montreal MLS category to be merged as well. All of this to match their respective parent articles. – Michael (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I guess that this will mess up these being sub-categories of Category:USL First Division players by club etc. is less important than all players that played for the same club should be catted together. Mayumashu (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (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) 02:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:American musicians of Hungarian descent to Category:American people of Hungarian descent and Category:American musicians
• Nominators rationale such intersections of descent and occupation are only supposed to exist where we could create a substantial, more than just a list article on the topic. As with several other such categories, I see no evidnence we could create such for American musicians of Hungarian descent. I meant to nominate this along with Category:American musicians of German descent and a bunch of others, but missed actually doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as proposed. There's a clear precedent here. Pichpich (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as proposed. Mayumashu (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2012 (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.