Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 6

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 all. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Template:Swaziland-royal-stub to Template:Eswatini-royal-stub
• Propose renaming Template:Swaziland-law-bio-stub to Template:Eswatini-law-bio-stub
• Propose renaming Template:Swaziland-sports-venue-stub to Template:Eswatini-sports-venue-stub

Nominator's rationale: We appear to have a number of templates that are named Swaziland-blah-stub, some are redirects to the Eswatini-blah stub which is not a problem however we also have some that are either the target of a redirected Eswatini-blah stub or there is no Eswatini-blah-stub. Unless there is a more complex system that we need to follow I propose the following:

1-Reversing the redirects on the following stubs:

• {{Eswatini-athletics-bio-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-athletics-bio-stub}}
• {{Eswatini-boxing-bio-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-boxing-bio-stub}}
• {{Eswatini-sportshooting-bio-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-sportshooting-bio-stub}}
• {{Eswatini-swimming-bio-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-swimming-bio-stub}}
• {{Eswatini-weightlifting-bio-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-weightlifting-bio-stub}}

2-Creating new Eswatini templates to have as targets for existing Swaziland templates where these don't already exist

• {{Eswatini-sports-venue-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-sports-venue-stub}}
• {{Eswatini-law-bio-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-law-bio-stub}}
• {{Eswatini-royal-stub}} with redirect from {{Swaziland-royal-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per nom. Her Pegship (?) 19:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This country was renamed in 2018. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 8 April 2025 (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) 22:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-government factions of the Syrian civil war to Category:Anti-Assad factions of the Syrian civil war
• Propose renaming Category:Anti-government politicians of the Syrian civil war to Category:Anti-Assad politicians of the Syrian civil war
• Propose renaming Category:Pro-government factions of the Syrian civil war to Category:Pro-Assad factions of the Syrian civil war

Nominator's rationale: Now that Assad has fallen, the war has entered a new phase where the Syrian opposition is now the government and Assad loyalists are the insurgents. I think the names of these categories should be changed to reflect that. Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2025 (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) 22:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Buffalo Bulls volleyball (0) to Category:Buffalo Bulls and Category:Volleyball in New York (state)
• Propose merging Category:Georgia Southern Eagles volleyball (0) to Category:Georgia Southern Eagles and Category:Volleyball in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Propose merging Category:Hawaii–Hilo Vulcans volleyball (0) to Category:Hawaii–Hilo Vulcans
• Propose merging Category:North Dakota Fighting Hawks volleyball (0) to Category:North Dakota Fighting Hawks
• Propose merging Category:Seton Hall Pirates volleyball (0) to Category:Seton Hall Pirates
• Propose merging Category:Southern Nazarene Crimson Storm volleyball (0) to Category:Southern Nazarene Crimson Storm and Category:Volleyball in Oklahoma
• Propose merging Category:Troy Trojans volleyball (0) to Category:Troy Trojans and Category:Volleyball in Alabama
• Propose merging Category:VCU Rams volleyball (0) to Category:VCU Rams and Category:Volleyball in Virginia

Nominator's rationale: These institutions do not sponsor men's volleyball programs, so merge in the spirit of WP:C2F. The articles are already all in Category:College women's volleyball teams in the United States. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why would not having a men's team cause a Merge? It doesn't mean their programs are "less than" colleges have teams for both genders. Would you do this for colleges that had sports that only had a men's team and no women's team? Also, Category:Southern Nazarene Crimson Storm volleyball is already empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, would do the same for categories that only have one article about a men's team. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2025 (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: option B. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose manually merging Category:Fiction set in the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction
• Propose manually merging Category:Fiction set in the New Kingdom of Egypt to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction
• Propose manually merging Category:Fiction set in the Old Kingdom of Egypt to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction

Option A: manually merge, for fiction the distinction between these three periods is quite trivial and (after the merge) we still keep diffusion by dynasty. This merge should be done manually because most articles and subcategories are already in Category:Films set in ancient Egypt etc.

Option B: rename "Fiction set in" to "Works set in" and re-parent, the content of the nominated categories is all fictional works, not about fictional characters or other fictional elements. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B - jc37 19:41, 7 April 2025 (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:Wikipedia timelines. Clear consensus for a merge; WP:BARTENDER consensus for the merge target to be the one proposed. Of course, editors are free to create new categories or propose Category:Wikipedia timelines for renaming at their leisure. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historical timelines to Category:Wikipedia timelines

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, largely overlapping scope, many of the subcategories are already in Category:Timelines by topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We have timelines about the future, but most timelines are about the past. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Lists of timelines. These seem to hold lists of time lines, as well as timelines - and timelines themselves would seem to be List pages. - jc37 19:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoch ones, beside List of timelines, are lists of timeline articles? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was looking in the subcats and seeing a bunch scattered throughout. In Category:Personal timelines, for example. - jc37 05:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those are lists of timelines, as opposed to individual timelines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Lists of timelines can (hypothetically) be created independent of the outcome of the merge discussion. But only if there are a number of articles with lists of timelines, not individual timelines. A timeline counts as a list, but not as a list of lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If a timeline is a list, then the category is a collection of lists. I see the confusion though - Lists of timelines, sounds like lists of lists. What would you suggest for a better way to phrase it? - jc37 19:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Lists of timelines is a form of Lists of lists (because a timeline is a form of a list), and I am not sure we need a category for Lists of lists in this particular case. Per LaundryPizza03 I'm asking: next to List of timelines, which other lists of timelines are there? There are more than enough articles with timelines, but that is not the question. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood, hence my question of what would be a better name for clarity? I thought about "Timeline lists", and just the simple "Timelines", but I was hoping that maybe you (et al) might have some other, perhaps better, suggestions : ) - jc37 00:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current name Category:Wikipedia timelines sounds fine to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2025 (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) 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Archaeological museums in England by county to Category:Archaeological museums in England

Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't have any pages; but it does have a single subcategory with three pages. The subcategory could be of the parent mentioned above instead. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Shouldn't the subcategory be nominated too? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2025 (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. The categorization of Governorate of Terra Australis can be discussed at Talk:Governorate of Terra Australis. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:16th century in Antarctica (0)

• Propose deleting Category:16th-century establishments in Antarctica (0)

• Propose deleting Category:1530s establishments in Antarctica (0)

• Propose merging Category:1539 establishments in Antarctica (0) to Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Antarctica

• Propose deleting Category:1530s in Antarctica (0)

• Propose deleting Category:1539 in Antarctica (0)

• Propose deleting Category:Years of the 16th century in Antarctica (0)

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Not useful for navigation. WP:OCYEAR/WP:NARROW. The lone article is already in Category:1539 establishments in South America, Category:1539 establishments in the Spanish Empire, and Category:States and territories established in 1539, so a second target is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:1539 in Antarctica and Category:16th-century establishments in Antarctica have been emptied and it looks like Category:1539 establishments in Antarctica was already deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, which means adding Governorate of Terra Australis into the target category {recording this CFD in the edit summary). ITBF (talk · contribs) removed it as WP:OR, but I think Terra Australis should be categorised because Chilean_Antarctic_Territory does refer to the historical claim. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Chilean Antarctic Territory article is rife with original research - notably the statement that Chile considers the Treaty of Tordesillas to be the source of its Antarctic claim is totally unsourced. Logically, how can a territorial claim be "established" in Antarctica nearly 300 years before the continent's existence was known with any degree of certainty? I T B F 📢 02:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per above. There are no items or events that can properly be categorised as "established" or occurring in the 16th century in Antarctica, a period centuries before its discovery. I T B F 📢 02:17, 19 April 2025 (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) 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Ensamheten to Category:People from Storuman Municipality

Nominator's rationale: One article; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2025 (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) 22:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Venezuelan refugee and immigrant athletes to Category:Venezuelan refugees

Nominator's rationale: per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_29#Category:Afghan_refugee_and_immigrant_athletes ^SMason_Garrison 12:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, very narrow intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2025 (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) 22:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Palestinian people of Syrian-Assyrian descent to Category:Palestinian people of Assyrian descent

Nominator's rationale: None of the people in this category are from Syria, best to just keep it as "Palestinian people of Assyrian descent" Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and reparent from People of Syrian-Assyrian descent to Asian people of Assyrian descent. Two pages are already within Category:Syriac Orthodox Christians. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For another parent category, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_17#Category:Palestinian_people_of_Syrian_descent. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 17 April 2025 (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) 22:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Australian expatriates in British Overseas Territories to Category:Australian expatriates

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 02:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose, this is only 1 of 7 in Category:Expatriates in British Overseas Territories by nationality, at least 1 of which (India) is identical to Australia, if this is redundant then they all are and should be bundled together for efficency. Crowsus (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison and Marcocapelle: thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with merging others in a follow up nomiantion. ^SMason_Garrison 12:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 6 April 2025 (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 as nominated with FL's tweak. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in 1099 (1 P) (article is already in the video games subcat of Category:Fiction set in the 11th century)
• Propose merging Category:Fiction set in 1289 (1 P) to Category:Fiction set in the 1280s
• Propose merging Category:Fiction set in 1380 (1 P) to Category:Fiction set in the 1380s
• Propose manually merging Category:Fiction set in 1422 (2 P) to Category:Fiction set in the 1420s (one article is already in the novels subcat of the decade)
• Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in 1450 (1 P) (article is already in the novels subcat of the decade)
• Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in 1453 (3 P) (articles are already in the novels and films subcats of the decade)

Nominator's rationale: merge/manually merge/delete, these are isolated and poorly-populated categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except merge the first to Fiction set in the 1090s, which will still have 4 members. – Fayenatic London 09:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This makes the relevant years difficult to locate. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus. Thoughts on FL's tweak?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, fair enough to keep the 1090s. As for Dimadicks comment, "locating the years" is not the purpose of categories. If you want to know the exact year(s) you can read the article. The purpose of categories is to navigate easily between related articles. Ultimately the idea of Wikipedia is to read the articles, not to create a database. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Fayenatic london. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merging Category:Fiction set in 1099 to Category:Fiction set in the 1090s (Fayenatic london's tweak) and merging/manually merging/deleting everything else per nom. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2025 (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: purge of biographies. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Agatha Christie to Category:Agatha Christie and Category:Family of Agatha Christie

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP we shouldn't have biographical and non-biographical articles in the same category, and per WP:OCASSOC, any association should be defined. Therefore, John Curran (literary scholar) should be purged, and a "family" category could be created, otherwise the family members should be purged too. Not sure whether Category:Christie family or Category:Family of Agatha Christie is more appropriate. --woodensuperman 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That distinction does not include eponymous categories, and we do not have enough articles on Christie's family for a viable category. Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course WP:COPSEP and WP:OCASSOC apply to eponymous categories, why do you think the wouldn't? --woodensuperman 04:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose WP:COPSEP applies here as well. It ia a bordercase trivial family relationship though, very unlike business families or political families. So either split or purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  More than happy for a simple purge to get rid of the biographical articles. --woodensuperman 14:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakly supporting Split to Category:Christie family per Category:English families and Category:Literary families. Weakly supporting, because I agree that a purge might also be appropriate, per the above. - jc37 15:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rough consensus to change something. Should it be a split or a purge? If split, thoughts on jc37's alternative split target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we seem to be more in favour of purging biographical articles than creating a family category. --woodensuperman 07:45, 10 April 2025 (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) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:16th-century BC women regents to Category:16th-century BC women, Category:Ancient women regents and Category:16th-century BC regents

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated century category, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regents and political figures have no place in a "women" category. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean you want to delete the entire women regents tree? I guess that would require a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opposite. Mixing rulers and civilians in a single category is like mixing apples with dinosaurs. Dimadick (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand what you mean. There are hardly any articles about ordinary civilians, neither in the nominated category nor in the target. It is far too ancient history for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I don't understand Dimadick's point. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I'm not sure that I fully understand Dimadick's argument against the merge to Category:16th-century BC women, but I have a feeling that I just don't see it their way. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (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 decades in C21, keep centuries and millenia; merge/delete the rest as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Tonga by year

• Propose merging Category:1865 disestablishments in Tonga to Category:Disestablishments in Tonga and Category:1865 disestablishments in Oceania
• Propose merging Category:2006 disestablishments in Tonga to Category:Disestablishments in Tonga and Category:2006 disestablishments in Oceania
• Propose merging Category:2009 disestablishments in Tonga to Category:Disestablishments in Tonga and Category:2009 disestablishments in Oceania
• Propose merging Category:2013 disestablishments in Tonga to Category:Disestablishments in Tonga and Category:2013 disestablishments in Oceania

• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Tonga by decade

• Propose merging Category:1700s disestablishments in Tonga to Category:Disestablishments in Tonga and Category:1700s disestablishments
• Propose deleting Category:1860s disestablishments in Tonga
• Propose deleting Category:2000s disestablishments in Tonga
• Propose deleting Category:2010s disestablishments in Tonga

• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Tonga by century

• Propose deleting Category:18th-century disestablishments in Tonga
• Propose deleting Category:19th-century disestablishments in Tonga
• Propose deleting Category:21st-century disestablishments in Tonga

• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Tonga by millennium

• Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in Tonga
• Propose deleting Category:3rd-millennium disestablishments in Tonga

• Propose deleting Category:1700s in Oceania

• Propose deleting Category:1700s disestablishments in Oceania
• Propose deleting Category:1700s in Tonga

• Propose deleting Category:1865 in Tonga
• Propose deleting Category:18th century in Tonga

Nominator's rationale: There are only 4 articles in the entire Category:Disestablishments in Tonga tree. Not useful to diffuse by any time period. WP:OCYEAR/WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep decades in C21, keep centuries and millenia. I've added the other 5 defunct airline articles and 4 other items, making 13 pages categorised. No objection to upmerging the other categories (1700s, 1860s and all years), although I would not have bothered doing this. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have created Category:2020s disestablishments in Tonga and Category:20th-century disestablishments in Tonga, which should be treated in line with the others according to the outcome of this discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    OK with this amendment. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's alternative proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you FL. So instead of merging to Category:Disestablishments in Tonga we can merge to the new categories when applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2025 (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:Free software distributions. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Visual Studio Code - Open Source distributions to Category:Visual Studio Code–Open Source distributions

Nominator's rationale: Please suggest a better destination than my tentative place-holder. The original contains the always-invalid ⟨ - ⟩. Correcting the hyphen-minus to an en dash still leaves the problem that the name is impossible to use in running text without confusion because the dash appears to function within the surrounding sentence rather than separate elements within the name, and my tentative suggestion of an unspaced en dash, while compatible with the MoS, appears to connect Code and Open rather than separate the phrases that contain them. Stephan Leeds (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Free software distributions. Not useful. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721 @Marcocapelle Can you explain why you said it doesn't make sense? I created this category for the fork of VSCode / code-oss (whatever you call it). 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are only two articles in the category, they can be interlinked directly. We do not need a category for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle There are many VSCode forks now, but some of them don't have entries on the English Wikipedia. Does the category require a minimum number of entries? Will they be added back when more entries are available in the future? 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @内存溢出的猫: There is technically no minimum number of entries (and there are certainly situations/trees where a category with two pages is acceptable), but generally, a category with 1-2 entries is not very useful. If there are more articles about VSCode forks at some point in the future, the category could be recreated (I would wait until there are at least 4-5 entries), but I have my doubts that there are actually many notable ones out there. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Aidan721. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Not seeing objections to the rename if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge to Category:Free software distributions, per above. And Cursor (code editor) already has Visual Studio Code linked in the header. - jc37 19:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Free software distributions per above, at least for now (no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2025 (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:Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia. WP:BARTENDER. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pre-1606 contact with Australia to Category:Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia

Nominator's rationale: As named, the category violates WP:OCMISC for an arbitrary cut-off. The vast majority of the articles are related to the Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia so rename to Category:Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia making Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia the main article and purge the few articles that are not relevant to the new topic. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or choose a new name, perhaps Category:Pre-Janszoon contact with Australia or Category:Pre-Dutch contact with Australia. Of the 13 pages in the category, 6 or 7 are related to the Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia while 6 or 7 refer to contact with Javanese, Makassar, Chinese, Egyptian, or Peruvian voyagers. Goustien (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, subjective cutoff. Move the articles not related to the Portuguese to parent Category:History of Australia before 1788. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The current title is too broad. In this case, it needs to be more specific. Dympies (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear agreement on rename target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:07, 6 April 2025 (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) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Qin dynasty in fiction to Category:Qin dynasty

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a subcategory with more of the same. Seems like that should be merged into this instead. -- Beland (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beland (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The subcategory is not more of the same. The article is about a fictional character, the subcategory about fictional works. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The subcategory is Category:Works set in the Qin dynasty and contains fictional works about the Qin dynasty sorted by medium. The nominated category contains one article about a fictionalized opera. I don't see how that's not a "work set in the Qin dynasty". It does not make sense to put the fictionalized The First Emperor directly in Category:Qin dynasty; it should be in the fiction subcategory. -- Beland (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beland: I think you are looking at the wrong category. The article I was referring to is Lady Meng Jiang which is not about an opera but about a main character in fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And the article Lady Meng Jiang appears to be about the folk tale which apparently has had several settings (during different dynasties). Perhaps that specific article should be instead moved to Category:Works set in Imperial China, or possibly even better: Category:Chinese folklore. - jc37 23:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, yes, both The First Emperor and Lady Meng Jiang are fictional works which do not belong in the main Qin dynasty category. -- Beland (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 6 April 2025 (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.