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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Astronomical observatories in Vatican City to Category:Science and technology in Vatican City and Category:Organizations based in Vatican City

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge this underpopulated category ^SMason_Garrison 23:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:59, 1 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:Astronomical observatories. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Astronomical observatories in Malaysia to Category:Scientific organisations based in Malaysia

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category ^SMason_Garrison 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Astronomical observatories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally good with me! ^SMason_Garrison 01:23, 9 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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Astronomy in North Macedonia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 23:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:57, 1 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Battles involving the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara to Category:Battles involving Islamic State – Sahel Province

Nominator's rationale: ISGS is now known as Islamic State - Sahel Province TheLibyanGuy (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename following RM at Talk:Islamic State – Sahel Province. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:54, 1 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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Genola, Utah ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article on a small town and an abandoned refinery, both of which are already appropriately categorised. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:21, 1 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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:English sportspeople of Turkish descent to Category:English people of Turkish descent

Nominator's rationale: And to Category:Sportspeople of Turkish descent. Goes against consensus which was reached for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 28#Britsh sportspeople by descent, that would obviously a parent of this. Crowsus (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:22, 1 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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Teshikaga, Hokkaido ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:23, 1 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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Haboro, Hokkaido ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:24, 1 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional budō practitioners to Category:Fictional practitioners of Japanese martial arts

Nominator's rationale: See WP:USEENGLISH. The Okinawan aspect might need to be upmerged, but I think Japanese martial arts is its own separately notable topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Jontesta (talk) 14:40, 7 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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional hangug-eo musul practitioners to Category:Fictional martial artists by type

Nominator's rationale: This tiny container category is too small to be necessary, and is pure overcategorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Jontesta (talk) 14:40, 7 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) 01:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional jianke to Category:Fictional swordfighters

Nominator's rationale: WP:OR. None of these articles mention jianke in them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Jontesta (talk) 14:41, 7 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: manual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional female swordfighters to Category:Fictional swordfighters

Nominator's rationale: This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization that fails WP:NONDEF, as being a female swordfighter is not defining compared to just being a swordfighter. (It would be called "swordswomen" anyway, but a delete is preferable to a rename due to its non-defining nature). Not all things have to be separated by gender and it should be done only when the gender is important with regards to the job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent to this category being merged or not, but what about other subcategories of Category:Fictional female warriors? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it depends. Female ninja, or kunoichi, have their own article, and this may very well be defining. I think they all have to be judged individually, so there is no massive procedural issue in doing them one-by-one. For now, they can also be merged into the base category of female warriors, but it would probably have to be done manually since not all swordfighters are warriors. I do think Category:Fictional female warriors is pretty safe since it's an encyclopedic topic in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge, most entries should already be in Category:Fictional swordfighters by medium. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:34, 1 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: manual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional male martial artists to Category:Fictional martial artists
• Propose merging Category:Fictional female martial artists to Category:Fictional martial artists
• Propose merging Category:Male martial artist characters in anime and manga to Category:Martial artist characters in anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: While an attempt to merge failed in 2021, I am reiterating it for these specific categories.

Since they include characters that are not simply sportspeople, but all fictional characters who use some form of martial arts, there is no encyclopedic reason to classify them by gender. The only reason to classify sports players by gender is because teams are gender-based. Instead, they should be dual merged into "Fictional male/female sportspeople" (IF applicable) and "Fictional martial artists".

Created by a blocked disruptive user as well, who knew full well this was not an encyclopedic cross-categorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge, most entries should already be in the tree of Category:Fictional martial artists by medium and/or Category:Fictional martial artists by type. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:36, 1 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) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tubular bells players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another percussion overcategorization; unlike the carillon or marimba, no one specializes on tubular bells. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:21, 1 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) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Iecava parish ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, poorly populated and as far as I can see there are no other categories at parish level in Latvia. The main administrative division is by municipality. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 1 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) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Companies based in Cēsis to Category:Cēsis
• Propose merging Category:Companies based in Liepāja to Category:Liepāja

Nominator's rationale: merge, categories with a single member, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 1 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) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Geography of Latvia by city to Category:Geography by city and Category:Geography of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Museums in Latvia by populated place to Category:Museums by populated place and Category:Museums in Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Culture by city in Latvia to Category:Culture by city and Category:Culture of Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Education in Latvia by populated place to Category:Education by populated place and Category:Education in Latvia
• Propose merging Category:Tourist attractions in Latvia by city to Category:Tourist attractions by populated place and Category:Tourist attractions in Latvia

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with each only a subcategory for Riga. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 1 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) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete, the subcategory suffices (that one might be renamed to Category:Ships built at the Öresundsvarvet). No need to merge, the main article is already in Category:Defunct companies based in Landskrona, the subcategory is already in Category:History of transport in Landskrona. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 1 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) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Edhi family to Category:Gujarati Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category doesn't help navigation with only a husband and wive pair who are already interlinked ^SMason_Garrison 02:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Edhi family is a very notable family from Pakistan because of their philanthropy work. I will say that the category should be left as is. Wikibear47 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a reason to keep Edhi family, not to keep Category:Edhi family. Oh, Edhi family does not even exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, neither of the two is specifically known as a Muslim. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally good with me! ^SMason_Garrison 01:23, 9 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) 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Indian People's Theatre Association people to Category:People associated with IPTA

Nominator's rationale: The revised text appears to be more appropriate and conveys a better understanding of the category. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. This is without prjudice to creating a chairs or activists category if they are defining characteristics. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead per WP:NOTDEF. If kept, oppose renaming for two reasons: 1. Abbreviations should be avoided (see WP:CATNAME; I don't think this falls under "acronyms that have become the official, or generally used, name (such as NATO)", evidenced by the title of the corresponding main article Indian People's Theatre Association); 2. (assuming WP:OCASSOC doesn't apply) while for this kind of category the naming schemes "People associated with..." and "... people" would be possible, it seems like if the organization name includes the word "association", only the latter is currently used (see search 1 and search 2), probably for stylistic reasons. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was not tagged; I will do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 1 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 for merging any categories (no prejudice against speedy renomination). For renaming, there is consensus that something needs to change, but no consensus on what the new name should be. Therefore, as a WP:BARTENDER, I am going with the option which Marcocapelle calls more accurate – PadFoot's alt rename. There is also no prejudice against a fresh rename nomination. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan
• Propose merging Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former countries in Indian history
• Propose renaming Category:Ancient empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Ancient polities in India
• Propose renaming Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Medieval polities in India
• Propose renaming Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan to Category:Former polities in Afghanistan
• Propose renaming Category:Former countries in Indian history to Category:Former polities in India
• Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former polities in Iran
• Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former polities in Nepal
• Propose renaming Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former polities in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: These are not all "empires and kingdoms", but rather include all historical states which once inhabited the modern-day territory of these countries. Opting for "polities" rather than "states" to remove any ambiguity (and these were not all "countries" either). Category:Former political entities in Afghanistan (currently the lone country cat in Category:Former territorial entities in Asia) and Category:Former countries in Indian history already exist, and thus Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan and Category:Empires and kingdoms of India should be merged there, and the two parents renamed with the desired naming scheme. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, if there are any articles not about kingdoms or empires they should be purged, but at first glance all content is ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former monarchies in Pakistani history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former monarchies in Afghan history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former monarchies of Iran, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former monarchies of Nepal, Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former monarchies of India, Category:Ancient empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Ancient Indian monarchies, Category:Medieval empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Medieval Indian monarchies. Rename Category:Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan to Category:Former countries in Pakistani history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Afghanistan to Category:Former countries in Afghan history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran to Category:Former countries in Iranian history, Category:Empires and kingdoms of Nepal to Category:Former countries in Nepali history, and merge Category:Empires and kingdoms of India to Category:Former countries in Indian history. The current names have issues related to anachronism that needs to be fixed. (Changed vote after discussion below)Merge to Category:History of Pakistan, Category:History of Afghanistan, Category:History of Nepal, or any of their sub-categories. These categories are unnecessary and non-conventional and have issues related to anachronism. The nominated categories appear to be one of a kind almost exclusively found in the South Asian topic area. Other articles related to former polities use categories such as Former kingdoms or Former empires along with Medieval history of Germany, Modern History of Italy, and so on. There is no reason South Asian topics should be an exception. PadFoot (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is a Category:Italian states. I sympathize with the argument of anachronism, but merging to general history categories would result in these categories becoming very messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I think that Category:Italian states does not pose a similar issue as it seems to be based on ethnicity and/or a link to a historical region, and thus is not anachronistic. To me, anachronism seems to be a significant issue in the case of the nominated categories, which needs to be addressed in one way or another. PadFoot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to conclude that it is based on ethnicity or historical region. The category just lists all states within the boundaries of 21st-century Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, See the category itself. It says in the top:

This category contains articles on former Italian countries and polities. This category contain all the former states south of the Alpine water divide (North Italy) and in the Italian Peninsula and all the states of Italian language and or culture.

Besides, what is important is that the nominated categories present issues of anachronism. Perhaps you could suggest a way to fix that? PadFoot (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Peninsula may well be considered to be a region, but current North Italy isn't part of it. North Italy is included in the category just because it belongs to the current state of Italy. There is also Category:Former countries in Spanish history. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Italy is indeed a part of it. See the very first line of the article on Italian Peninsula:

is a peninsula extending from the southern Alps in the north to the central Mediterranean Sea in the south

Besides, the cat also mentions "states of Italian language and culture". However, you have convinced me that the categories should be retained and not merged, but should be renamed (in one way or another) to fix the anachronism. Perhaps, we should also expand in the categories. PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @PadFoot2008: please do not remove articles from any of the nominated categories while we are discussing them. If you think there are other issues with these categories you can raise them here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• With the revised rename proposal, it is still not clear what is wrong with "empires and kingdoms". For brevity we might rename it to "monarchies" but any rename beyond that seems unnecessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, monarchies would be good, but there would still be a problem with anachronism, which is why I suggest changing "of country" to "in country history", (like "in Spanish history" instead of "of Spain"). PadFoot (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's keep it at monarchies then. I do not have a clear opinion on "of country" versus "in country history". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle, Alright. Shall I change my proposal to "Monarchies of India", "Ancient monarchies of India" and so on then? Would that be good? PadFoot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @PadFoot2008: that would definitely be helpful for the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Marcocapelle, I've placed a new proposal. A problem I see with this however is that we get anachronistic constructs such as "Monarchies of Pakistan" (or earlier "Empires and kingdoms of Pakistan"), as these monarchies didn't exist in a territory called 'Pakistan', which is why I think that "Monarchies in Pakistani history"/"Former monarchies in Pakistani history" would be better in this case. PadFoot (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ok. I am not opposing it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        @Marcocapelle, is it possible to nominate the same category twice or do I have to wait until this is over? PadFoot (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • Don't worry, the closer will read the entire discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alternative name suggested by PadFoot?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alternative name suggested by PadFoot?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Do you support PadFoot's alt rename? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @HouseBlaster: I am neutral, the alt rename is slightly more accurate but also more verbose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 9 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:21st-century diplomatic conferences. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Afghanistan) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Asia-Pacific) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Africa) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Americas) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (BRICS) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Commonwealth) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Global) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Europe) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (MENA) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (Security) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (NATO) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences (UN) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nominating these subcats of the main 21st-century diplomatic conferences category. These subcats are WP:Overcat or in this case over subcat as each one of these subcats don't do much in terms of organizing these articles in a proper order nor are accurate.

For instance, the Afghanistan subcat deals in regard to the War in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021. But the G7 articles under the Global subcat also dealt with Afghanistan including other conflicts. The G7 summit in 2013 for instance dealt with the war in Syria as one of the agenda items. So if there was a subcat with (Syria) in the title, it would go in there as well by this logic of the now-banned creator. But it too would go in the Global category. So, it would be too many categories for each summit that overlap on issues they deal with.

If there are going to subcats for the main category, it should be probably be something like "Category:2024 diplomatic conferences" as by year would help reduce the overflow of articles in one category. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept, at least merge to Category:21st-century diplomatic conferences. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to merging. But still, these individual cats should not exist. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:14, 1 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.