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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Keystone State Wrestling Alliance to Category:Professional wrestling in Pittsburgh

Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not help navigation. User:Namiba 21:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional elements from anime and manga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Even though you could add Category:Anime and manga characters thoroughly improve the category, it will only contain just 2 subcats anyway...and besides, the only subcategory right now is Fictional mecha and it's not like that mechas only appears in anime and manga. You're better off to delete this category than to do anything else. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, fictional "elements" is pretty vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: quad merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Archives in Togo to Category:National archives

Nominator's rationale: Merge also to

Category:Culture of Togo Category:Educational organisations based in Togo Category:History of Togo Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Quadruple merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Restaurants in England and Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridgeshire; discussion of Midsummer House's categorization can take place at Talk:Midsummer House. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Restaurants in Cambridgeshire to Category:Restaurants in England

Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Tourist attractions in Cambridgeshire and Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridgeshire.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge to Category:Restaurants in England and Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridgeshire. There is nothing about tourism in the article so I don't expect that Category:Tourist attractions in Cambridgeshire is an appropriate merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added it to Category:Buildings and structures in Cambridge (a subcat of ...Cambidgeshire) which is where it should be regardless of what happens here. --woodensuperman 13:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: triple merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Further education colleges in Blaenau Gwent to Category:Further education colleges in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Education in Blaenau Gwent and Category:Buildings and structures in Blaenau Gwent.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: triple merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Further education colleges in Anglesey to Category:Further education colleges in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Education in Anglesey and Category:Buildings and structures in Anglesey.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Theatres in Latvia by city to Category:Theatres by city and Category:Theatres in Latvia

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Musical instruments played with drum sticks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Percussion instruments played with specialised beaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Musical instruments played with soft mallets ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Percussion instruments by playing technique ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Struck idiophones played by hand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Why do these exist? They are not actual categories like Category:Hand drums or any of the Hornbostel-Sachs divisions. The latter is a duplicate of Category:Hand percussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. But I admit I do not understand nom's rationale. While Wikipedia rightly uses Hornbostel–Sachs extensively, we need not restrict ourselves to this scheme of categorisation, and nothing in Wikipedia:Categorization supports doing this. Nor do guidelines mention actual categories (or have I missed it?) whatever these are. On the other hand these categories each refer to a defining characteristic. At the very least, nom should clarify their rationale and relate it to the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Note that Andrewa is the creator). To clarify using formal Wikipedia terms, none of these categories are defining per WP:DEFINING. In fact, to say a snare drum can be categorized by its beater is wrong. Sure, it is played with sticks, but also soft timpani mallets, brushes (a type of specialty beater), and rutes. Hell, see Swerve by Gene Koshinski. The snare is played with hands, a triangle beater, and a door stop, and it is among the more popular solos for the instrument. The implements used to play percussion are non-defining given the nature of the instrument family and can be confusing for readers. Bongos is a hand drum but it is also incredibly common to play with sticks. I could place nearly any percussion instrument into all three of the first categories and it would be, to a certain extent, correct. Thus, these categories are useless. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is no secret that I created this category. Nor is it relevant. I still get a !vote. Or do you see it as a COI?

  A snare drum is certainly played with beaters other than sticks... I regularly use rutes. But it can also be played using sticks, and most normally is. This distinguishes it from tympani and the conga for example. (In fact playing either of these with sticks risks damaging the head. I suppose it's no worse than a prepared piano but please don't try it.)

  So to say that to say a snare drum can be categorized by its beater is wrong is itself wrong, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I won't be WP:POINTY, but if I wanted to, using reliable sources, I could put nearly all percussion instruments into all of these categories (like I said above). And what defines a "specialized beater" versus "drum stick" versus "soft mallet"? This is another issue with these categories. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to be pointy. Just provide these reliable sources. All you have said so far is that you don't like these categories. Andrewa (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The question of whether Category:Hand drums... is a duplicate of Category:Hand percussion (as nom seems to think) is a separate issue, but as the owner of several hand cymbals I have an opinion on this too. I thank nom for bringing it to my attention... some suspended cymbals are played and intended to be played by hand, for example my awesome Paiste Traditionals 11" thin splash (scroll down to it). So some work is needed on the hand cymbals redirect... Also created I notice by the nominator of these deletions. I am investigating sources and should have them to hand in a few days... See User:Andrewa/percussion sources. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am beginning to understand. Nom wants to use only Hornbostel-Sachs classifications as musical instrument categories, I think that's what they mean by not actual categories above. While the H-S classification is very useful, and in my opinion is correctly the one used in the musical instrument sidebars created by Template:Infobox instrument and its clones, it's not the only useful classification system and some of its terms and uses are esoteric... just for example clarinets are percussive in their terminology, while castinets are not. As a general encyclopedia, we should try to use terms and categories that our readers will understand.

To say that a snare drum is not normally played with drum sticks is as ridiculous as saying that a saucepan is not normally used for preparing food, and deleting Category:Cooking vessels on the grounds that cooking vessels can also be used for mixing paint.

And I think this saucepan analogy is useful in exploring the notion of defining characteristics. One of the defining characteristics of a saucepan is that it is a cooking vessel. But it is not always used for cooking. One of the defining characteristics of a snare drum is that it is played with drum sticks. Most snare drums are never played in any other way. But on occasions, they can be and are played with other beaters. The Top Secret Drum Corps regularly use fireworks. But most of the time even they use regular drum sticks. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need outside participation to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't think that "can be" and "on occasions" are in the realm of a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that "can be" and "on occasions" are not defining characteristics, and I am not for one moment suggesting that they are. But see James Holland Practical Percussion ISBN 978-0-8108-5658-5 p44 the snare drum is played with sticks of hardwood. That is, the snare drum is normally played with sticks. That is what I am claiming is a defining characteristic. The hi-hat is also normally played with sticks. Similarly a bass drum is not normally played with drum sticks, to quote Holland again Timpani or snare-drum sticks are generally unsuitable other than for a particular effect (p4). The tamtam can be played with broken pottery as in Mikrophonie I (which I heard Stockhausen himself present in quadraphonic sound and describe its production... memories!). But this is not the normal manner of playing. Similarly the occasional use of extended_techniques that do not use the keyboard does not make the piano any less a member of category:keyboard instruments. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think it might be helpful to restate the last point from my last post. The arguments above seem to be that being normally played with drum sticks is not a defining characteristic, as other beaters are sometimes used. But if we were to apply this same logic to category:keyboard instruments, the piano would not be a keyboard instrument, as it is sometimes played without using the keyboard. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:19th-century fashion designers. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:19th-century American fashion designers to Category:19th-century American designers and Category:American fashion designers

Nominator's rationale: Duel merge: Underpopulated category, and per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_3#Fashion_designers_by_century ^SMason_Garrison 04:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous discussion rather calls for upmerging 20th- and 21st-century fashion designers, which I would support if nominated. Keeping "pioneer" designers in a separate category is less of an issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. My point was mostly focused on the fact that these were underpopulated, especially considering that there's not a Category:19th-century fashion designers parent category. ^SMason_Garrison 22:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough, let's then merge to a new Category:19th-century fashion designers too. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a good solution. I'll add these to the underpopulated parents so that we can just rename the category to Category:19th-century fashion designers . ^SMason_Garrison 16:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Italian-American Anarchists to Category:American anarchists and Category:American people of Italian descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. Non-defining intersection. If not merged, it should be renamed to American anarchists of Italian descent ^SMason_Garrison 03:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the people in the early Italian diaspora and the Italian anarchist movements in the US were not of Italian descent, but rather Italian immigrants to the US, some of whom even got deported. Many of the circles, the Galleanisti, the Paterson workers, were not born in the US. Not only that, but they were more than the sum of the American anarchist movement and the Italian anarchist movement.

Italian Americans are a defined group of people with a page on the English Wikipedia; it is a comprehensible name for the category. Baetalicma (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (or rename) per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BEFORE is needed. This is a very well-defined topic, see [1][2][3] for some examples. Most of those in question were not of Italian descent but immigrants to the United States (and Canada). As such, describing them as Italian descent is factually incorrect.--User:Namiba 18:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as mentioned, many of these people were Italian, not of Italian descent. Well-defined and defining topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The norm for categories like this is still American anarchists of Italian descent. ^SMason_Garrison 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:English radicals to Category:British radicals
• Propose merging Category:Scottish radicals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:British radicals

Nominator's rationale: Diffusing not needed for these underpopulated categories. ^SMason_Garrison 03:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the Scottish category is certainly underpopulated and this refers to a period in which there was one unified British parliament. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. AusLondonder (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we want to get rid of one of them, we can do away with the British radicals category and have separate categories for English, Scottish, etc. --Uglytriangle999 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we get ride of the parent category? The issue is that these categories are underpopulated and the intersection doesn't seem to be particularly defining. ^SMason_Garrison 22:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Caves of Quebec to Category:Caves of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to justify, not useful for navigation. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Landforms of Quebec. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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