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:American memoirs and Category:Memoirs by prison officers. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Memoirs by American prison officers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. The category has two entries which could easily be upcat to Category:American memoirs and Category:Memoirs by prison officers Vegantics (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dual merge per nom/Marco Mason (talk) 21:20, 7 October 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Spacecraft endings to Category:Spacecraft retirement

Nominator's rationale: There does not appear to be such a thing as a "spacecraft ending". I suggest renaming to correspond with spacecraft retirement, which can be the main article of the category. I do realize that will necessitate the removal of various subcategories, but as-is, it is too vague overall and does not correspond with any actual terms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 4 October 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:Actors with disabilities and Category:Wheelchair users. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Actors who are Wheelchair Users to Category:Actors who are wheelchair users

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. Fram (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was after talking to two actors who are wheelchair users. Like Blind or Deaf actors, chair users have their own identity, and they have particular access needs which makes accessing the profession of acting particularly problematic. They seemed to be a category missing from Actors with Disabilities... which is a title that is questionable. I know quite a lot of Disabled Actors and although they are actors first, being a Disabled Actors has two useful interpretations. From a cultural standpoint they are a community, which is why when the Disabled Artists Alliance was formed, over 300 disabled actors and theatre creatives who lobby against cripping-up in the UK, they chose the name, because from a social model of disability perspective they are also disabled by the ableist attitudes and assumptions when it comes to casting. GRF (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really a defining intersection? There are no other occupation categories in Category:Wheelchair users other than sports which is something different. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an interesting point, but when you consider visibility of disability in dramatisation, people see the chair. There is an an actor with cerebral palsy who ambulant wheelchair user called Zak Ford-Williams. He has appeared on stage not in his chair, but as he can only stand for a limited amount of time, and his movements are so exhausting, his time on stage is all he can manage on the day because of a combination of pain and fatigue. He creates an illusion of not being disabled by pushing what he is capable of. He always takes a bow from his chair at the end of the performance and talks about the reaction of the audiences who make assumptions about him, and about this being a political act and post modernist in itself, and a wheelchair is a symbol of that. It is as important as any other portrayal of visible disability, and we have categories for other disabled actors, why not wheelchair users? GRF (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge per Pppery. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Pppery to Actors with disabilities and Wheelchair users. Technically, using a wheelchair is not a disability (so egrs doesn't need to apply), so the comparison to being blind or deaf doesn't work amazingly. And even if it did count, the argument posed by Garethfw is for keeping disabled actors. Mason (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this about a social, cultural, medical or political perspectives. If it is about diagnosis, how do we confirm hidden disability actors with for example dyslexia have a diagnosis, or self-diagnosed, self-diagnosed or "identify as..." which is not strictly medical, it is cultural. Then how do we deal with deaf, Deaf or hearing impaired actors? Here we have medical, cultural and political models.

  I have dyslexia and ADHD (you have to trust me and I have a full diagnosis from two psychologists nd a psychiatrist, or so I say...), but if I was an actor the audience would not know I was disabled and if I declared I was there is no evidence apart from self-identity, which cannot be verified. So having a visible disability, or having the aspects of a condition being visible so the audience label me as "disabled" such as having one arm, that is both political, cultural and to a degree medical, although they are seeing a trait without knowing the condition. Which is where wheelchair users come in, although they have different conditions they can experience common barriers both in social attitudes as well as physical ones, and as such they are a community and have an identity, so this is social model of disability, and political model, regardless of medical.

  I'm really confused because it is confusing as the categories do not seem to align with any particular model of disability. GRF (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing opposition to renaming if kept, but should this category be merged/deleted? If so, should we merge or just delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge This is not a defining intersection at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dual merge per Pppery and Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:33, 5 October 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. {{Trout}} QuantumFoam66 for multi-!voting (it just makes it hard to read as a closer) and for moving the category without going through CFD. With that out of the way, there is consensus that Category:Video games about aircraft should be kept and no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination regarding the category redirect Category:Aviation video games. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Video games about aircraft to Category:Aviation video games

Nominator's rationale: These are overlapping categories. THe merge target is older and was merged into this one outside of the cfd process. Mason (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These cannot be overlapping categories as Category:Aviation video games currently does not contain any content. I also believe you are saying I should have renamed Category:Aviation video games rather than creating a new category. Though these two categories are technically different, as the name and subcategories have or had a different structure, also Category:Helicopter video games wasn't a part of Category:Aviation video games before I redirected the category. Furthermore the category Category:Video games about aircraft is very small, just saying. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all the content from the Aviation category. All of the excuses/explanations you've listed does not justify circumventing the CFD process. Mason (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the original category of Category:Aviation video games was always too small, overly-vague, and conflicted with Category:Flight simulation video games. It is a better idea to instead just delete both Category:Aviation video games and Category:Video games about aircraft.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The right process is to request a rename at this forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The current name of category actually works better, especially because it is a child category of Category:Video games about vehicles. When the page Category:Video games about aircraft is deleted and merged, we will have to rename the category to the original name I desired. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is irrelevant that the current name works better. You should have proposed a rename instead of recreating a category. Mason (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was actually going to say that first because I changed my mind. We're doing any of that. We'll just merge it instead and leave it as is. The category is very small though. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would you think that the size of the category is relevant? It doesn't matter about the size. The problem is that you're circumventing the process. Mason (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not all flight simulation games are about aircraft. Apparently some people don't realize that things that can fly, but are not aircraft also feature in games, such as dragon riding, bird riding, and other manner of fantastical creatures. Therefore, games about aircraft and flight simulators should be separate categories. Rather, delete Category:Aviation video games as overly vague. I am also concerned about the tree of Category:Works about aviation and whether that is vague and overlapping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have an issue with converting "aviation" to "aircraft". The discussion is mainly about proper procedure. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This CfD process has been a disaster. Finding a non-vehicle based-simulator under Category:Flight simulation video games category is like finding a needle in a haystack, Category:Video games about aircraft will end up being a largely-overlapping category with Category:Flight simulation video games. So it is a better idea to just delete both Category:Aviation video games and Category:Video games about aircraft.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop double voting. The issue is that you circumvented the CFD process and are now suggesting delete because you don't like the verdict. Mason (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I just added Airplane Mode (video game) which would appear to be your supposed "needle in a haystack" given that it's about aircraft but has nothing to do with piloting them. This only further proves my point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm Are you opposing combining the categories, opposing the name, or endorsing circumvention of procedures? I'm fine with a merge and rename to the original. The issue is that there are two categories, and the Aviation video games category is much older, so it's edit history should be preserved. Mason (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is not much older than the other, both were created in the last 2 years, so there is not really a need to preserve history eithe way. I support maintaining the current status quo, while deleting "aviation" to avoid confusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Aviation video games, which I will note is currently a {{category redirect}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People supporting a merge, do you support deleting Category:Aviation video games?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on deletion. I think that should be a seperate Cfd from this one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:35, 5 October 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 (and I take no pleasure in this result). Thank you all for your participation, in any event :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chemical looping technologies to Category:Chemical process engineering

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There are one two pages in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, though I am not sure if Category:Chemical process engineering or Category:Chemical processes is the right target. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't really sure either, so any content experts would be much appreciated! Mason (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with potential rename to expand scope slightly for inclusion of additional related articles. I've never heard the phrase "chemical looping", but I know that pressure swing adsorption, anthraquinone process, and several decaffeination processes are all a comparable concept. Maybe something with "cycle" rather than "loop" is better? These are all like a catalytic cycle, but where the cycle is interrupted by time and/or place instead of a one-pot type of process. Thanks for the WPCHEM ping, HouseBlaster! DMacks (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @DMacks: so how exactly should this be renamed? And which other articles can be added after renaming? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, I'm not sure of the name. I'm in the chemistry world, not engineering, so I don't know if engineers have a more-general term here. In addition to the three articles I already mentioned, also sulfur–iodine cycle (and other thermochemical cycles) and Girdler sulfide process come to mind. DMacks (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! It hadn't even occurred to me that this is about engineering rather than about chemistry. I left a notification at the WikiProject Engineering talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're welcome! I looked up some likely synonym/descriptor phrases, and couldn' find anything else consistent. "Loop" in the context of reactor design seems to have several distinct modes (closed vs open; but a flow reactor might be a loop but not have discrete reaction zones; and component reactions might each be themselves a batch vs continuous). Hopefully some engineering folks can help figure out a reasonable term of art here. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll emphasize the message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering. And thank you to DMacks for your help so far!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, both of these processes can be pointed towards a broad category of Category:Chemical processes, followed by Category:Chemical_reactions or buried deeper under Category:Combustion.

Reasoning for this, looking at both associated articles, they describe oxidizing reactions (one literally for combustion and the other for a process of reformation/gasification (which is creates gases like H2/N2/etc.)) The name (if applicable) could be renamed to something to the effect of oxidative looping, combustion looping, process looping, etc. Process is probably the most broad and applicable — ChemicalBear (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realize that this has been relisted twice already, but I think this needs more thurough discussion and consensus seems very close. I will ping people again :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: thoughts on the above? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had the expertise. I'm fine with either a rename suggested by content experts or a merge. Mason (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously object to ChemicalBear's rationale, since I found about a half-dozen other articles on this approximate genre (whatever it's called), as noted in my previous comments about adjusted scope, most of which are not about combustion or simple oxidation, and one that is not even a chemical process at all, but all that have a coherent topic of the cycling process. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 6 October 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) 00:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Como, North Carolina to Category:People from Hertford County, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for Now Como, North Carolina says 91 people live there, but not objection to recreation if enough content appears later, per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:47, 7 October 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) 00:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Computer science award winners to Category:Computer scientists by award

Nominator's rationale: These two categories currently have almost the same content and ideally should have exactly the same content. I couldn't find any existing documentation about which one is preferred, so I'm proposing merging one way but we could merge the other way too. Shardul.chiplunkar (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Clearly duplicative, makes it cleareer that's it's a container cat, and matches Category:Writers by award. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:07, 7 October 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 to Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia and Category:Polish expatriates. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Polish expatriates in the Czech lands to Category:Polish expatriates

Nominator's rationale: merge, if kept it should become Category:Polish expatriates to Bohemia, Czech lands is an anachronistic term. But there is no expatriates to Bohemia tree, so better to upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle Why did you empty sibling Category:Danish expatriates in the Czech lands out of process? There is a Category:History of the Czech lands and a main article Czech lands. You may not personally like the term, but it is well-established in historiography, as it would be an actual anachronism to use "Czech Republic" to refer collectively to Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia before 1993. I think you'll need a better justification to upmerge this category and to ECOOP its sibling than that you perceive Czech lands to be an anachronism. Alternatively, all 4 people might fit into Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia, as they all appear to have lived in Prague between 1198 and 1918, so that might be a fine alt merge? NLeeuw (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nederlandse Leeuw: I suppose you mean Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia as a second merge target next to Category:Polish expatriates? That would be alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the Danish sibling, there was one article in it and I removed it because of the content of the article. That had nothing to do with "Czech lands", otherwise I would simply have added the category to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I could agree to a dual merge to Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia and Category:Polish expatriates. That would be per WP:MFN because Category:Polish expatriates in the Czech lands is currently somewhat underpopulated with just 3 members, not because there is something wrong with the term Czech lands.

Princess Louise of Denmark (1875–1906) was born in Copenhagen and moved to Ratibořice Castle in the Kingdom of Bohemia, where she lived from 1896 to 1906. How does that have nothing to do with "Czech lands"? Either way, in this situation, the category should have been nominated for deletion/merger or something, not emptied out of process without stating a reason.

Nevertheless, we could probably agree on a dual merge here as well: to Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia and Category:Danish expatriates (or Category:Danish emigrants as you already did). NLeeuw (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Princess Louise belongs in an emigrant category, not in an expatriate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Dual merge in both cases then? NLeeuw (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to NL's latest suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a dual merge to Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia and Category:Polish expatriates is alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 4 October 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bordeaux tramway stops to Category:Tram stops in Bordeaux

Nominator's rationale: I'm not familiar with public transportation in France but it looks like these categories are duplicates of each other. Since this category is the only category in Category:Tram stops in France by system, it seems wiser to merge this category rather than doing a merge in the opposite direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead, all subcategories under Category:Tram stops in France by commune should be deleted. All these tram stops are part of the network of Bordeaux tramway. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: Are you supporting this nomination as a first step, or do you oppose dealing with only one category? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This category that is now nominated is the only one that should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As I created this distinction, I can answer the question on the rationale. Category:Bordeaux tramway stops is a category for all the tram stops on the Bordeaux tram system, whilst Category:Tram stops in Bordeaux is a category for all tram stops in the commune of Bordeaux. As the tram system extends beyond the commune, they are not duplicates, but as the Bordeaux tram system is the only current tram system in the commune, Category:Tram stops in Bordeaux is going to be a subset of Category:Bordeaux tramway stops, unless we have articles on historic tram stops, which doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not greatly wedded to the idea of multiple categories; I created it this way because I had previously been criticised for putting stops that were not in the city of Zurich in a 'Tram stops in Zurich' category and been pressured into this two category approach there. If the community has swung against that approach, I'm happy to go with that. I also note that, as Marcocapelle points out, all the sub-categories of Category:Tram stops in France by commune are now in the Bordeaux agglomeration (I'm pretty sure that was not the case back then), so there is merit in his suggestion to merge both categories into Category:Bordeaux tramway stops, and then delete Category:Tram stops in France by commune and all its sub-categories. That would of course break the link between commune and tram stop, but maybe that is not worth keeping. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added text to both categories explaining their content, which will be useful whatever is kept. Mea culpa, I should have done this when I made the distinction. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on chris_j_wood's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:40, 4 October 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) 01:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional terrestrial planets to Category:Fictional planets

Nominator's rationale: Whether a planet is made of rock is rarely ever defining to a fictional work, as compared to a real-life planet, and is typically the default for notable fictional planets. They could be made of glass, steel or unobtainium and it would essentially make no difference. Therefore this category is fairly unnecessary and should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Composition is sometimes plot-relevant, but not always. Only remaining fictional-planets-by-type category, and likely to include most fictional planets because giant planets are not interesting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 7 October 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) 01:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Provisional governments in Indonesia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Name of category does not match the (only) subcategory. Also, there has only been one provisional government n Indonesia, so this category is unnecessary Davidelit (Talk) 03:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, every country was own Provisional governments, that for every user detect how the sentral of goverment controled as centralized system. Putu Suhartawan (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete accompanied by unrelenting creation of red link categories in the Indonesian project shows a lack of clarity as to english meanings, and already existing categories and subject. Strongly suggest there is inadequate demonstration as to any understanding WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT JarrahTree 04:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore - since nomination editing and adding to the category show a very limited understanding what the meaning in english actually is in the context that the nominator has stated above.JarrahTree 04:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see it. "Provisional" instead of "provincial." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the three articles are entirely unrelated. One is about before the Provisional Constitution of 1950, one article is about an institution based on that constitution and one article is about East Timor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 4 October 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:LGBTQ+ Wikipedians. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians to Category:LGBTQ+ Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The parent article has been renamed to LGBTQ (RM discussion) last month and the related WikiProject has now also been renamed to WP:LGBTQ+ (RM discussion of the community) after another discussion, so following WP:CONSUB and WP:C2D, I propose the user category also follows suit, aligning with the sentiment of the WikiProject that the community has embraced LGBTQ+. Raladic (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, I can't see any reason why this category would have a different sort of name than established in mainspace. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename This is really WP:C2D material and didn't need discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People have been objecting to C2D renames (even though it clearly applies) – see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 11#LGBT nominations which were opposed at CFDS. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:16, 4 October 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. No consensus on whether to merge or delete, so we are going with the original suggestion. Categorization of Cholera toxin can be discussed at Talk:Cholera toxin. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Toxic enzymes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category isn't very helpful with only one page in it. Mason (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not meaningfully different from Category:Protein toxins and can be merged/redirected into that. ― Synpath 11:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related: while updating Category:Protein toxins with Botulinum toxin I found Category:Biological toxin weapons - a bizarrely named, small category with mostly protein toxins within it. I removed the small molecule toxins from it and think it should be merged to Category:Protein toxins. ― Synpath 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Typo in my last relist comment. I meant to ask "Should we merge?"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My knowledge of molecular biology is very limited, but considering that Category:Enzymes is part of the tree of Category:Proteins it sounds reasonable to merge and possibly redirect the nominated category to Category:Protein toxins. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Toxicity is species-dependent, and different variants of the same enzyme can have measurably different properties. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 7 October 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) 01:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indonesian bureaucrat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Absurdly general (and ungrammatical) category, potentially encompassing 10 percent of the population Davidelit (Talk) 00:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 280 million people - not practical to even consider potential issues, the existential issues arising from a singular designation is not what wikipedia is about JarrahTree 00:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we need the real data about how the bureaucrat doing coruption culture for being normal, the realiable source is the best think for learning how the coruption growth. Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wikipedia categories are for an on line encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX. A closer examination of existing categories, and a more clearer understanding what WP:ABOUT might mean, the new categories being created are superfluous, and not help for what an average reader might learn about Indonesian politics or culture; the clarification of what already exists in the Indonesian project might help. JarrahTree 04:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is no meaningful distinction with Category:Government of Indonesia. The two subcategories are already in that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The contents here included Category:Mayors of places in Indonesia (except that mayors are politicians, not bureaucrats) and one person who was already in the Category:Indonesian civil servants subcategory and thus represented duplicate categorization — so the only thing that wasn't a total misfile is the civil servants category, and the only thing left after cleanup is the civil servants category. But no other country's civil servants category either has or needs a "bureaucrats" parent for it, because civil servants is a synonym of bureaucrats, not a subcategory of it. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 4 October 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) 01:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The 100 most prominent Serbs according to a committee of academicians at the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an overcategorisation that duplicates an existing list (The 100 most prominent Serbs) and is an example of an essentially arbritrary WP:TOPTEN, and is not a defining characteristic of the included persons. We definitely do not need both a list and a category here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 4 October 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.