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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Carmarthenshire

Category:Education in Carmarthenshire Category containing only a single article, better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:44, 21 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) 02:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trump administration personnel to Category:First Trump administration personnel

Nominator's rationale:I think we should differentiate between the first and second go-around for Trump. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What do the Cleveland administration categories look like?^SMason_Garrison 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename somehow, though I am not sure if Category:First Trump administration personnel is good grammar. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trump administation personnel, first term"? If it's renamed, Category:Second Trump administration personnel needs to follow. Should Category:Cleveland administration personnel be split if this one succeeds? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Good grammar" or not it's going to be the common useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 21 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. Pinging Marcocapelle in case he wishes to purge anything as an individual editor action. :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and a biography, both are already appropriately categorised. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I've added 2 more articles and it now has a sub category and given its a town it probably is appropriate to have a category for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Crouch, Swale's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The biography does not belong here, per WP:COPSEP, it is appropriately in Category:Clergy from Warwickshire. The football club (article and subcategory) is likely to move away from Whitnash soon, it is barely a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: perhaps we need more guidance on the number of pages a topic category or other categories should contain/could contain given SMALLCAT was deprecated. Whitnash parish had a population of 10,489 in 2021 but Stanhope had only 4,436 but Category:Stanhope, County Durham has 56 pages and a sub category. I'm not of the mind that we should keep all categories except those like Category:Churches in Kenton, Devon for example that would probably only even contain 1 page as most villages only have 1 or 2 churches but most villages/parishes like Kenton would probably be able to have a list of listed buildings and several would probably be clearly notable even if we assumed not every listed building was notable per WP:GEOFEAT and there would probably be one or 2 other things in the parish or something else associated with the village so add to a category. Consider Category:Grassington which until recently had only 2 articles other than the main article but now has a total of 10 articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to Crouch, Swale's latest comment? A subcategory and three articles as of relisting (one of which is a biography).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The school article should also not be in this category as it is not located in the town and is already appropriately categorised in Category:Academies in Warwickshire Category:Schools in Leamington Spa and Category:Secondary schools in Warwickshire. Other, smaller towns may have categories if there are sufficient genuine articles for them. That's what's relevant. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its in the parish so is within the scope of the category. Its normal for both articles and categories to cover both settlements and administrative units that may cover other units so the school can be in the Royal Leamington Spa tree as well as here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With so many questionable articles in it I am certainly not changing my mind about deletion of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the size of the place and the fact we have several articles here I still think it should be kept. The school doesn't seem dubious and if the football club moves away we can reconsider. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 28 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) 02:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the American Antiquarian Society ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mere membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 21 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) 02:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Times that 1100 Wikipedians supported something to Category:Times that 1000 Wikipedians supported something

Nominator's rationale: We don't really need such fine-grained divisions. The amount of times 1000 Wikipedians or more supported something is already very low, and subdividing to the nearest hundred will leave most categories empty, or with one item at most. Having them all in Category:Times that 1000 Wikipedians supported something makes for better navigation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree once we reach 1000 we should make it exponential if needed or by 500s •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. It was a late-night spur-of-the-moment creation; now in the harsh light of day, I agree we should probably be looking at 500s or exponential increases past 1000. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 02:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I was actually planning to say this at the talk page before it hit 1100 signatures. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 15:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The category is now empty, and the page was moved to Category:Times that 1200 Wikipedians supported something. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 20:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment...The open letter is now past 1200 signatures... - Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not change the title of the "1000 times" category to "Category:Times that 1000+ Wikipedians supported something"? That may help make the individual hundreds between 1000 and 2000 seem less necessary to observe. Reddit clarifies why beggars CAN'T be choosers. On the other hand, Wikipedia clarifies why editors CAN be choosers!!! (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom – seems fairly straightforward to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now because category is empty, and rename "1000 times" to 1000+. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominate Category:Times that 1200 Wikipedians supported something for CFD consideration of deletion. This is ridiculous, I deal with empty categories and every few days we have another one of these categories deleted. We can't keep making these categories for every increment of 100 or 1000 new signatures. There is nothing to Merge, it's just shuffling one page into the next category for a slightly increased number. Just make one category for 1000+ and be done with it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^^*Yes. Agree with Liz. - Shearonink (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged that category page too. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the one page that exists in the 1200 one, and Delete the 1100 one. Agree with previous comment of Liz. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything above 1000 should be in increments of 1000. Seems silly to keep doing it in units of 100. SWinxy (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are a number of items in WP:300 that had 400+ supports because it's called Wikipedia:Times that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something. We don't need a category for 400, 500, 600, and so and and so forth, yet, because of how empty they'd be. Just keep with the existing one that encompasses 300+ supports. Useight (talk) 02:39, 30 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) 02:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Ngawi to Category:People from Ngawi Regency

Nominator's rationale: Recently created and seemingly duplicates the longstanding Category:People from Ngawi Regency, which was emptied out of process to populate it (I have reverted those actions). Ngawi is ambiguous, so this category should not be titled without a disambiguator. It seems that subcategorization is not merited, but I don't have strong feelings about a merge outcome if the community decides renaming would be best. ✗plicit 12:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

small problem I have a strong feeling that all Indonesian categories should be consistent across all Regencies or Provinces, whatever the topic - I havent looked or checked, but individual stand alone categories against the rest of Indonesian categories should be strongly discouraged. JarrahTree 12:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fiction fandom to Category:Fandom

Nominator's rationale: After removing some subcategories, I realize this category is kinda unnecessary, most things related to fandoms are associated with the fans of creative work(s) of fiction. A merge is highly recommended for how small this category has become is and why I believe it is unnecessary. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it isn't so small that a merge would be necessary, it has no less than 10 subcategories. Besides I disagree with the first part of the rationale too, since sports fandom and music fandom are just as important. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Marcocapelle's comment. This has enough pages to be a category. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Film fandom. (non-admin closure) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Film and video fandom to Category:Film fandom

Nominator's rationale: Why is it titled film AND video fandom? Shouldn't it be simply titled "Film fandom"? We already have "category:television fandom" which doesn't have a messy name like this one. I'm also removing several things unrelated to film from this category in accordance to the proposed rename. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. (Though next time better wait with purging until after the discussion.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about film and television fandom? Espngeek (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Medical doctors from Rajahmundry to Category:Medical doctors from Andhra Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:People from Rajahmundry. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support dual merge as well. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Medical doctors from Jharkhand to Category:Indian medical doctors

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:People from Jharkhand. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support dual merge as well. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 20 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.