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: revert recent changes and upmerge. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerge Category:Andalusian Spanish variants to Category:Spanish variants

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. No need to merge it to the other parent Category:Andalusia since the one article refers to Gibraltar instead of Andalusia. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so small anymore. Propose renaming to Category:Andalusian Spanish instead. -PanchoS (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  After some reconsideration regarding the Andalusian dialects throughout the Americas, I think the category should remain as is, so keep. -PanchoS (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge : That all American dialects of Spanish resemble more or less Western Andalusian dialects doesn't mean that they are dialects of it. --Jotamar (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Jotamar, the American article and category should be removed from this category, as well as the Canarian article. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after 3 weeks and only one editor in favor of the present categorisation (created recently by that same editor), I think it's time to recover the old categorisation. I'll do it myself if nobody opposes it. --Jotamar (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2015 (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 new name. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Timeline of countries and Category:National timelines to Category:Timelines by country

Nominator's rationale: These two categories are overlapping and neither of the two complies with our established scheme. Also, per consistency with parent Category:History by country PanchoS (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ashkenazi Jews topics to Category:Ashkenazi Jews and Judaism
• Propose renaming Category:Romaniote Jews topics to Category:Romaniote Jews and Judaism
• Propose renaming Category:Sephardi Jews topics to Category:Sephardi Jews and Judaism

Nominator's rationale: Per (grand-)parent Category:Jews and Judaism.

Purpose of this category is to bundle both Ashkenazi, Romaniote, Sephardi jews (the people) with their respective culture into a single category, basically the same way the category tree Category:Jews and Judaism works.

While this clearly is a valid concept, the mere addition of "topics" however isn't consistent with the other category branch, adding to the massive confusion and miscategorization in the whole Category:Jews and Judaism tree. While basically the whole category tree is a mess, at this point I don't want to rediscuss all of the whole huge subject together, if we can improve consistency of these particular branches, paving the way for possible further improvements at a later point. For example, I'm unsure if the intermediate Category:Jewish ethnic groups fully captures all aspects of this concept, but let this be the next aspect to discuss.

--PanchoS (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All and Keep Because: a) There is no such thing as "Ashkenazi Judaism" (there is however "Nusach Ashkenaz" the way Ashkenazi Jews pray and their customs, but it is not referred to as a "Judaism" as such) because the term "Ashkenazi" primarily refers to an ethnicity, a Jewish sub-ethnic group, i.e. it is translated as "Germanic" and there is no such thing really as "Germanic Judaism" as such, meaning "Ashkenazi" refers to Jews who come from "Ashkenaz" that means "Germany" in Biblical Hebrew, that broadly includes and refers to Jews from Germany, France, Poland, Hungary, Russia -- whether they practice Judaism or not. b) The main article for this category is Ashkenazi Jews and the main parent topic for this category is Category:Ashkenazi Jews and it is thus its legitimate related or sub-category! c) Not all the topics in this category have to do with Judaism per se, since Judaism is a religion mainly, while the topics are inclusive of secular and non-religious topics, as well as even anti-religious Jews, who are of Ashkenazi Jews extraction yet have nothing to do with Judaism as such. d) Likewise, with Sephardi Jews, the main article is Sephardi Jews the main category for it is Category:Sephardi Jews, the word Sephardi/Sefardi means "Spanish" or "from Spain" and refers to Jews who ethnically and historically lived in and originated from Spain, Portugal, and North Africa and extending into the Middle East, and there is no such thing really as "Sephardi Judaism" really, while there is/are Sephardic law and customs, and yes this can get very confusing. Therefore, e) Leave well-enough alone because if it ain't broke don't fix it, and note that this, albeit well-intentioned, yet clearly misguided and mistaken nomination, is probably a good example of what is meant by the need for WP:EXPERT & WP:COMPETENCE & WP:EXR. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 14:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All and Keep for all the same reasons given by IZAK. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All and Keep as per IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All and Keep as per IZAK. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I respect your inclination to keep the categories as is, but am not so sure about your main argument, namely, that there was no such thing as "Ashkenazi Judaism" as Judaism was mainly about religion.
  Firstly, according to Judaism#Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism, Daniel Boyarin states uncontradictedly that "the underlying distinction between religion and ethnicity is foreign to Judaism". If there even is something like Humanistic Judaism rejecting the religious aspects of Judaism, then it can't be true that Judaism is overwhelmingly about religion.
  Secondly, you're saying that there was no such thing as "Ashkenazi Judaism". However, relevant articles and books exist that even bear "Ashkenazi Judaism" in their titles, including Mysticism, Magic, and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism at Google Books, or Illness and Death in Ashkenazi Judaism at Google Books. Michel Gurfinkiel refers to "19th-century French Ashkenazi Judaism" ([1]). Eugeniusz Duda refers to it (Pillars of Judaism at Google Books), Heinz Mosche Graupe does (The Rise of Modern Judaism at Google Books), David Lehmann and Batia Siebzehner do (Remaking Israeli Judaism at Google Books), and Edna Aizenberg cites an Ashkenazi journalist refering to it (Contemporary Sephardic Identity in the Americas, p. 80, at Google Books). Joseph Dan, professor at Jerusalem University ([2]), and Kateřina Průšová ([3]) offer university courses focussing on "Ashkenazi Judaism", etc. p.p. There might be different viewpoints, but it seems clearly established that "such a thing" indeed exists.
  Thirdly, it is not about whether you or me are capable to grasp the (IMHO overly intricate and often inconsistent) categorization in the "Jews and Judaism" category tree. Rather it's about whether it is accessible for the average user or not. And if it's not, it further deteriorates with users miscategorizing articles. So no, we're not fixing something that ain't wrong. Rather, categorization is an ongoing work.
  Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Renames The current titles more effectively describe their contents and serves more effectively for those navigating through these categories. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all and keep - Ashkenazi/Sephardic/Romaniote are ethnicities; Judaism is a religion. Current categories are fine. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all and keep I concur with what IZAK has said regarding the issues with this suggestion. -- Avi (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose suggested changes. Geographic areas of origin correspond to negligible differences in ritual practice. Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Westfield Center, Ohio to Category:People from Medina County, Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county community with only 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Every community does not automatically get one of these just because it exists; a place doesn't get one until the number of people who can be filed in it, right off the top, is already large enough to get beyond WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Bearcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2015 (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:Formula 3.5 V8 with no merger, per User:QueenCake. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Formula Renault 3.5 Series to Category:Formula Renault 3.5 series

Nominator's rationale: duplicate category Jz392 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC) jz392[reply]

• Question: @Jz392: @Morio: a reverse merge might be better, as the article mentions the name with capital S on Series, but the article is now at Formula 3.5 V8, so should the merged category be renamed to Category:Formula 3.5 V8? – Fayenatic London 10:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch! I agree with the renaming. In that case, it doesn't matter whether we merge or reverse-merge the two categories? Jz392 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right; reverse merge would only apply if we were not renaming. I suggest the closer first moves the lowercase-"series" page to the new name in order to keep the history of the older category page. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@QueenCake: as you changed the redirect Formula Renault 3.5 Series you may also be able to advise. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london:I've been having a look at this, and there is a reasoning behind the two separate categories. Formula Renault 3.5 is a category of motor racing (read Formula Renault for full detail), and Category:Formula Renault 3.5 series (lower case) is intended to include the different championships run to FR3.5 regulations (see Category:Formula Renault 2.0 series for comparison). The Category:Formula Renault 3.5 Series (upper case) is specifically for the Formula Renault 3.5 Series, now renamed Formula 3.5 V8, which was the main championship. Unfortunately as "series" is both singular and plural, the English language has caused some confusion, as we only have the case to distinguish the two different categories.

However, luckily for us, we should be able to both clear the confusion and represent the recent page move, by moving Category:Formula Renault 3.5 Series (upper case) to Category:Formula 3.5 V8, while leaving Category:Formula Renault 3.5 series (lower case) alone. QueenCake (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2015 (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) 12:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging and redirecting Category:Linguists of Coptic to Category:Coptologists

Nominator's rationale: Small category, should be merged to older and larger category with substantially the same scope. It seems unlikely to me that there would be people who achieved a defining notability in studying the culture without knowing the language. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- In theory linguists is a narrower category, but I do not think that matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support + questions, shouldn't we merge the one article also to Category:Coptic language & shouldn't we also nominate all other child categories in Category:Coptic language to merge to the parent category and/or to Category:Coptologists? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted; I have picked those up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 13. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge One article is not enough to justify such a split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 05:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ancient Indian grammarians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: only contains Category:Ancient Sanskrit grammarians which is already in the parent categories of this one. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - More Indian languages have been added to the category, so that the rationale no longer exists. Aravind V R (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 11:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Science fiction adventure films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too broad for a category: it lists superhero action films like Iron Man, science fiction horror like Alien, science fiction thrillers like Sunshine, Children of Men, the Japanese animated feature Paprika, the Disney-film Wall-E, light-hearted family film E.T.. These all have already their own respective categories. Soetermans. T / C 11:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Valid recognized category. Scifi adventure is no broader than, say, category:War adventure films‎. If something is miscategorized, fix the article.

A Reference Guide to American Science Fiction Films

https://books.google.com/books?id=st1kAAAAMAAJ

A. W. Strickland, ‎Forrest J. Ackerman - 1981 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions

Science Fiction-Adventure Films within this sub-classification emphasize the adventure or drama surrounding the principle players and is equal to, or greater than, the science fiction aspect of the story. Nevertheless, the SF emphasis, even ...

• keep per above 152.249.96.220 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Double Upmerging Category:Qing dynasty people executed by decapitation with Category:Executed Qing dynasty people and Category:Chinese people executed by decapitation

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:People executed by the Qing dynasty by decapitation and WP:OC generally.

There are 7 articles about Chinese people executed by decapitation during the Qing dynasty and all of them were executed by the Qing Dynasty so they all also appear in Category:People executed by the Qing dynasty by decapitation. (3 foreigners and 2 Ming Chinese people also suffered the same fate and are only in the "executed by" category.) There may be some cases where a lot of citizens are executed by other governments or a government executes a lot of non-citizens in a sort of venn diagram but, in this case, the triple intersection mostly creates double categorization.

If you're thinking to yourself, two execution by decapitation categories doesn't seem so bad, Lucy Yi Zhenmei is in 2 more decapitation categories and 4 more non-decapitation execution/martyr categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified BrownHairedGirl as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject China. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment. Wouldn't the content also need to be upmerged to Category:Executed Qing dynasty people and Category:Chinese people executed by decapitation so as not to completely remove the articles from those category trees? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; nomination updated. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions: @RevelationDirect: Good Ol’factory: if we do that double upmerge, won't that worsen the category clutter by adding two execution-related categories in place of one? Also, the parent Category:Chinese people executed by decapitation is currently almost a container category, but upmerging would more than double its direct member articles; do you envisage upmerging more of its subcats? – Fayenatic London 22:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have broader concerns about the dynasty/execution intersection and plan more noms. In this historical period, "dynasty" equates to government regime, and we don't have Category:French Fifth Republic people executed by decapitation. (We do have Nazi subcategories though.) That would leave only Category:Chinese people executed by decapitation. (Of course, those future nominations might not pass so this needs to be judged on its own.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The nationality ones should ultimately just be placed in appropriate "Chinese" categories for Chinese people of all ages, so more work will definitely be necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 5 December 2015 (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) sst✈^discuss 05:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cactusjackbangbang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There was never any evidence this user had any sockpuppets at all. See WP:ANI#Blocks related to Neelix. Kelly ^hi! 00:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per ANI discussion. Oculi (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this was a witch hunt.Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of sockpuppetry; SPI showed accounts unrelated. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:12, 12 November 2015 (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.