March 29

Category:Posthumous people

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Posthumous people (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, does not appear defining.Nikkimaria (talk)23:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as gibberish. 'Posthumous' does not mean 'dead'. It means (per Merriam Webster) "following or occurring after death" or similar.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly and of no use.Maungapohatu (talk)00:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Looking at the articles that were removed, I can't see what this category was for.Liz^Read!Talk!01:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed that it was a simple misunderstanding of what 'posthumous' meant: see above. If it wasn't that, then it is even less explicable.AndyTheGrump (talk)01:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial assumption, but I think it's actually meant to be forposthumous children.Nikkimaria (talk)02:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a stretch to assume that it would be understood that way by readers, if that was the intention. It is still a misuse of the word. And in any case it isn't a defining characteristic.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not clear what it was for but it is empty now. If there is a need for a category then it should have a name that makes sense i.e. not this. --DanielRigal (talk)02:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Looking at which articles the category was placed by the creating editor, it seems obvious that what they were intending wasCategory:People born posthumously, which I think is the normal idiom. Surprisingly, a category that effectively covers that doesn't seem to exist already, but would be useful/legitimate.DeCausa (talk)09:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, butCategory:People born posthumously still seems silly. It is the act ofhaving a child that is posthumous. Something described in relation to the parent, not the child. And given that this usage of 'posthumous' is clearly uncommon compared to other usages, it is also expecting far too much of readers, where (if this actuallyis a defining characteristic, which I'd like to see real evidence of) a simple. factual explanation would do better:Category:People born after the death of a parent.AndyTheGrump (talk)13:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. "Born posthumously", as in "X was born posthumously", is absolutely standard idiom eg[1][2][3][4][5][6]DeCausa (talk)22:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st link: A sentence on Charles IV, not his posthumous daughter.

2nd link: Sentence on Theobald III's death, which goes on to say his son was 'born posthumously'.

3rd link: "Theobold of Champaigne's death in 1201, whose only son was born posthumously, further strengthened..."

4th link: "Albert died in 1439, and his heir Ladislas was born posthumously..."

5th link: I fail to see how Roman naming conventions are relevant to modern English word usage.

6th link: "... Ernie...was lost in action...Lucy was carrying my brother Mark, who was born posthumously."

Ignoring 5, which simply demonstrates that Romans used the name 'Posthumus', every example provided merely demonstrates thatwhen discussing the death of someone, subsequent birth of an ofspring may be described as 'posthumous'.Posthumous in relation to the dead parent. None of your examples, demonstrate that the term is used to describe an individual in isolation. It isn't a description of an individual (except possibly in Latin), it is a description of the circumstances of their birth, applied only in the context of the death of their parent, the topic of focus. Beyond that, the word simply isn't used to describe individuals.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Still it would not be a defining characteristic.Marcocapelle (talk)10:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, especially in the context royal/aristocratic succession. Maybeonly for that context and the categorisation should be limited to that. See, for example,Ladislas Posthumous,John the Posthumous,Theobald the Posthumous,Agrippa Postumus etc.Literally defining, no? Even when they don't get the epithet I would argue it's normally fundamental to their bio egAlfonso XIII's posthumous birth caused a six month interregnum.DeCausa (talk)11:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a case for avery limited application of this cat to that context, but I do think a different name would be needed.Nikkimaria (talk)15:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I suggested.DeCausa (talk)22:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A (differently named) version of that category was deleted atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 7#Category:Posthumous births.Extraordinary Writ (talk)08:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a defining characteristic. –Aidan721 (talk)12:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - now this is just getting silly. What next, a category for the living? Or males and females?Nfitz (talk)19:54, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pre-1606 contact with Australia

Disestablishments in Tonga

Category:Porin Ässät personnel

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Porin Ässät personnel (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure I understand the intention in creating this category but I believe the idea is to include anyone employed byPorin Ässät (or more specifically for its ice hockey componentHC Ässät Pori) that isn't already included inCategory:Porin Ässät (men's ice hockey) players orCategory:Porin Ässät (men's ice hockey) coaches. The problem is that we're left with a non-defining categorization. For instance,Jere Seppälä is a massage therapist for the team (uncited fact btw) but is obviously not notable for that: he had a seven-year career as a player. As forMatti Kuparinen, he played for the team (and is categorized as such) but was also briefly an assistant coach for its U18 squad and now works as the team's physical therapist. Neither position makes him particularly notable, so the extraCategory:Porin Ässät personnel is not pertinent.Pichpich (talk)21:54, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Trials by year

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:merge toCategory:2000s trials.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Trials by year
• Propose deletingCategory:Trials in 2007

Nominator's rationale: PerWP:OCYEAR andWP:NARROW. Every other trial article is categorized by decade and 2007 is the only year catgegory.voorts (talk/contributions)21:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge toCategory:2000s trials. –Aidan721 (talk)22:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above.Marcocapelle (talk)07:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeCategory:Trials in 2007 toCategory:2000s trials and deleteCategory:Trials by year.Pichpich (talk)22:28, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Minsk City Council of Deputies

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Minsk City Council of Deputies (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, unnecessary.Gjs238 (talk)21:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory.Marcocapelle (talk)07:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has scope to be populated, for example with articles on the elections. --Soman (talk)09:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories are for navigation between related articles. If there aren't any articles yet there is no point in creating the category.Marcocapelle (talk)16:24, 1 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Surinamese politicians by populated place

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:merge.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splittingCategory:Surinamese politicians by populated place toCategory:Politicians by populated place andCategory:Surinamese politicians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here.^SMason_Garrison18:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.Marcocapelle (talk)21:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk)10:38, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Singers from Huddinge

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:merge/delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:Singers from Huddinge toCategory:Singers from Stockholm andCategory:People from Huddinge Municipality
• Propose deletingCategory:Musicians from Huddinge
• Propose deletingCategory:Music in Huddinge
• Propose deletingCategory:Culture in Huddinge

Nominator's rationale: Two categories for one article is not aiding navigation. I have not found any definition of what is constituting the borders ofStockholm for categories and ifHuddinge and similar are part of Stockholm or not. It varies from category to category. There are at least three definitions:

• • Huddinge is part of Stockholm according toStatistics Swedentätorter (Stockholm urban area)
  • Huddinge is part ofMetropolitan Stockholm
  • Huddinge is not part of part ofStockholm Municipality

This decides the first merge target: toCategory:Singers from Stockholm orCategory:Musicians from Stockholm County. Suggestion is based on the first option.Kaffet i halsen (talk)18:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom.Marcocapelle (talk)21:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added two more categories that would become empty.Kaffet i halsen (talk)21:04, 31 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

17th century in Oceania

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:no consensus.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:1600s in Oceania

• Propose mergingCategory:1606 in Oceania toCategory:17th century in Oceania
• Propose deletingCategory:1600s in Australia

• Propose mergingCategory:1606 in Australia toCategory:17th century in Australia

• Propose deletingCategory:1600s in Tonga

• Propose mergingCategory:1600s establishments in Tonga toCategory:2nd-millennium establishments in Tonga andCategory:17th-century establishments in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1600s establishments in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1610s in Oceania

• Propose mergingCategory:1616 in Oceania toCategory:17th century in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1620s in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1623 in Oceania
• Propose deletingCategory:1629 in Oceania
• Propose mergingCategory:1620s in Australia toCategory:17th century in Australia

• Propose mergingCategory:1629 in Australia toCategory:17th century in Australia andCategory:1629

• Propose mergingCategory:1629 establishments in Australia toCategory:2nd-millennium establishments in Australia andCategory:17th-century establishments in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1620s establishments in Australia

• Propose deletingCategory:1620s establishments in Oceania

• Propose mergingCategory:1670s in Oceania toCategory:17th century in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1670 in Oceania

• Propose mergingCategory:1670 establishments in Oceania toCategory:17th-century establishments in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1670s establishments in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:1690s in Oceania

• Propose mergingCategory:1697 in Oceania toCategory:17th century in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:Years of the 17th century in Oceania

• Propose deletingCategory:Years of the 17th century in Australia
• Propose deletingCategory:Years of the 17th century in Tonga

• Propose deletingCategory:17th century in Tonga

• Propose deletingCategory:17th-century establishments in Tonga

• Propose deletingCategory:17th-century establishments in Australia

Nominator's rationale:WP:OCYEAR. Not useful to diffuse the 17th century in Oceania by year or decade. –Aidan721 (talk)18:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom.Marcocapelle (talk)21:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nomination does not explain whyOceania is different than any other continent.Dimadick (talk)11:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Don´t know if it is the reasoning thus time, but too often some smallish thing is nominated, a few usual suspects agree, and then this is presented as some precedent to go after a larger group and silence the opposition which then appears. It´s very tiring, and all for no benefit to readers at all.Fram (talk)11:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • • "all for no benefit to readers at all" None of the deletions was ever about the benefit of readers. The purpose is usually to waste the effort of editors and drive them away from Wikipedia.Dimadick (talk)16:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the 17th century was the very early stages of European exploration of Oceania so there are very few articles in this tree, meaning perWP:OCYEAR the century level should not be diffused by decade or year. Other continents have far more content for the 17th century so decade categories (and years in some cases) make sense there. –Aidan721 (talk)12:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't agree withWP:OCYear. If we know the year of an event, comparing it with contemporary events in other parts of the world is useful. Amalgamating it into a century category loses the parallels. --Error (talk)22:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't lose that. After the merge, for example,Batavia's Graveyard is still inCategory:1629.Marcocapelle (talk)06:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These are part of a number of trees, where it serves no purpose to cut off the small branches. For example, this nom "Propose merging 1606 in Australia to Category:17th century in Australia". It would then e.g. no longer be a part of theCategory:1606 by country tree. I see no benefit from this proposal, nor from the many similar proposals constantly diminishing the use of the year/country cats and similar trees.Fram (talk)09:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It helps navigation when it is not in the by country tree. If you want to navigate fromBatavia's Graveyard to other articles in 1629 then after the merge you have one barrier less.Marcocapelle (talk)16:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And if you want to navigate from that article to e.g 18th c. Australia articles, you´ve made it harder.Fram (talk)17:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all, because you will move from the 17th century to the 18th century in a single step.Marcocapelle (talk)19:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    1629 - 17th c- 18th c - 18th c by country - 18th c in Australia. Now it is 1629 in Australia - 17th c in Australia - 18th c in Australia. So you add two steps.Fram (talk)20:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Huh?Batavia's Graveyard will still be inCategory:17th century in Australia after the merge. From there toCategory:18th century in Australia is a single step.Marcocapelle (talk)05:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      But e.g.Wiebbe Hayes Stone Fort won't be in "17th century in Australia".Fram (talk)07:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentCategory:Years of the 17th century in Tonga is an empty category.Liz^Read!Talk!20:20, 5 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People from Northern Ireland places by occupation

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:merge/delete as nominated.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:People from Antrim, County Antrim, by occupation toCategory:People from Antrim, County Antrim
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Ballymena by occupation toCategory:People from Ballymena
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Ballymoney by occupation toCategory:People from Ballymoney
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Carrickfergus by occupation toCategory:People from Carrickfergus
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Larne by occupation toCategory:People from Larne
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Armagh (city) by occupation toCategory:People from Armagh (city)
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Lurgan by occupation toCategory:People from Lurgan
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Portadown by occupation toCategory:People from Portadown
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Coleraine, County Londonderry, by occupation toCategory:People from Coleraine, County Londonderry
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Magherafelt by occupation toCategory:People from Magherafelt
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Cookstown by occupation toCategory:People from Cookstown
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Dungannon by occupation toCategory:People from Dungannon
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Omagh by occupation toCategory:People from Omagh
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Strabane by occupation toCategory:People from Strabane
• Propose mergingCategory:Sportspeople by populated place in County Fermanagh toCategory:Sportspeople from County Fermanagh andCategory:Sportspeople by populated place in Northern Ireland
• Propose mergingCategory:People from Enniskillen by occupation toCategory:People from Enniskillen
• Propose deletingCategory:People by populated place and occupation in County Fermanagh

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 subcategories. Redundant category layers. Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk)16:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.Crowsus (talk)16:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk)19:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom.Marcocapelle (talk)21:12, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bangladeshi Bengali people

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Bangladeshi Bengali people (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:Bangladeshi people by ethnicity (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: According toDemographics_of_Bangladesh#Ethnic_group,The vast majority (about 99%) of Bangladeshis are of theBengali ethno-linguistic group. This intersection is therefore notdefining. The parentCategory:Bangladeshi people by ethnicity contains nothing else, and if populated more would only duplicateCategory:Ethnic groups in Bangladesh. –FayenaticLondon16:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Marcocapelle (talk)16:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk)13:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Pichpich (talk)22:29, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cricket World Cup stadiums

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

• Propose deletingCategory:1975 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:1979 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:1983 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:1987 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:1992 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:1996 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:1999 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:2003 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:2007 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:2011 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:2015 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:2019 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:2023 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Propose deletingCategory:2027 Cricket World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per previous deletions e.ghere andhere, the scope failsWP:OCVENUE. Valid list item, though has not been created.Crowsus (talk)16:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the stadiums.Marcocapelle (talk)16:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk)17:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Vestrian24Bio13:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like a textbook case ofWP:OCVENUE.Pichpich (talk)22:32, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rugby League World Cup stadiums

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Rugby League World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per previous deletions e.ghere andhere, the scope failsWP:OCVENUE.Crowsus (talk)16:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the stadiums.Marcocapelle (talk)16:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk)17:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like a textbook case ofWP:OCVENUE.Pichpich (talk)22:33, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rugby World Cup stadiums

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Rugby World Cup stadiums (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per previous deletions e.ghere andhere, the scope failsWP:OCVENUE.Crowsus (talk)16:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the stadiums.Marcocapelle (talk)16:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk)17:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like a textbook case ofWP:OCVENUE.Pichpich (talk)22:33, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Core Anglosphere Initiatives

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Core Anglosphere Initiatives (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale:Category:Anglosphere seems sufficient, which all the articles are in anyway.Gjs238 (talk)16:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Pichpich (talk)22:44, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aliko Dangote

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deletingCategory:Aliko Dangote (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Nominator's rationale: Questioning the necessity for a category with one eponymous article and one non-eponymous article.Gjs238 (talk)12:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the two articles are already interlinked directly.Marcocapelle (talk)17:16, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:16th-century BC women regents

Category:Clockmakers from Norwich

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:merge.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:Clockmakers from Norwich toCategory:People from Norwich

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Also propose merging-

• Category:Philosophers from Norwich toCategory:People from Norwich
• Category:Missionary workers from Norwich toCategory:People from Norwich

Also categories with just one entry.Lost in Quebec (talk)09:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Merging to a second merge target is not necessary, the articles are already in an appropriate occupation category.Marcocapelle (talk)10:19, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artists from Dalarna

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:rename.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renamingCategory:Artists from Dalarna toCategory:Musicians from Dalarna County

Nominator's rationale: In this category there are onlymusicians (andmusical groups), noartists [actually there is one, discussed below]. Suggestion is also to change fromDalarna toDalarna County as county is the subdivision in use (andCategory:Swedish people by occupation and county is more used thanCategory:Swedish people by occupation and province).Kaffet i halsen (talk)08:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Carl Johan Fahlcrantz was a painter.Marcocapelle (talk)10:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I had missed Fahlcrantz when looking through. AsAnders Zorn,Anshelm Schultzberg,Olof Arborelius,Emma Josepha Sparre,Elisabeth Glantzberg also would fit there, I'm open to a result with oneCategory:Musicians from Dalarna County and oneCategory:Artists from Dalarna County.Kaffet i halsen (talk)10:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating a musicians subcategory is of course fine, that could have been done boldly. I have no opinion on the change to County.Marcocapelle (talk)17:19, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Establishments by continent

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:Keep.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I have moved the list of nominated categories tothe talk page so that I can actually edit this page without my browser throwing a temper tantrum. It was listed on this page for the entire discussion.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a followup toWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 22#Category:Establishments by decade and country nominating subcategories and organizing only by country and not by continent, as suggested byMarcocapelle. --Beland (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Beland (talk)07:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the outcome here, I can do a followup on century and millennium categories inCategory:Establishments by continent and time. --Beland (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Beland (talk)08:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What is the purpose of this absurd proposal, to make the category trees more confusing and difficult to find?Dimadick (talk)08:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually trying to simplify the category trees and make things easier to find and maintain. We don't need to have things sorted by both country alphabetically for the whole world and country alphabetically scoped one continent at a time. I'm agnostic as to which scheme to keep, but having two schemes seems like more work and more confusing. --Beland (talk)08:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thesubcategories are already in the target, so if this goes ahead conceptually it means for execution that anyarticles should be manually moved one level higher, to the global establishments in year category.Marcocapelle (talk)10:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As for the content of the nomination, I am not sure if it isconfusing to have two category trees next to each other. But at least until the Middle Ages the split in Europe, Asia and Africa isanachronistic and there wasn't any alternative commonly recognized scheme by regions in place. The idea of continents starts to make sense in the Age of Discovery, when there is a continent of colonial powers, and east, west and south of that there are the continents to be explored and colonialized. So I support nominations up to the year 1500. That is, I am not against nominations of later years, but then the reason is weaker, namely for consistency.Marcocapelle (talk)11:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I see no benefit from this proposal, and tectonic shifts arenlt rapid enough to see the "anachronism" claim as in any way convincing. Perhaps we should also delete all categories with a "BC" date, as that is anachronistic as well?Fram (talk)13:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram: Would you support streamlining by removing the "by country" categories and only leaving the "by continent" categories, which then have categories for individual countries in them? --Beland (talk)16:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no benefit in this proposal, at all, just like in way too many proposals for "streamlining" or dismantling trees for dubious reasons (like "anachronisms").Fram (talk)18:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree with the anachronism argument, either. What do you see is the benefit of having by-country-alphabetical-by-continent if we already have by-country-alphabetical, or vice versa? --Beland (talk)17:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think this proposal improves the category structure. –Aidan721 (talk)17:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fine as it is.GMH Melbourne (talk)08:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe this nomination should be withdrawn at this point since I don't see enough support for it to pass. Then, taking on feedback, an alternative proposal could be proposed for a subset of this large group of categories.Liz^Read!Talk!00:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subset you're talking about is pre-1500, I don't think it makes sense to sort by continent after 1500 and not before. That would be confusingly inconsistent and break navigation templates that currently let readers go from e.g 1510s establishments in Europe to 1490s establishments in Europe. Sorting by continent is already confusing for countries like the Ottoman Empire, which covered different continents at different times, and you'd have to know which when to find it. --Beland (talk)03:44, 31 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies upmerge

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:rename/merge as in the updated nomination.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edited as suggested in discussion, twice)

• Propose renamingCategory:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies toCategory:Dependent territories of the United Kingdom
• Propose renamingCategory:Airlines of British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies toCategory:Airlines of dependent territories of the United Kingdom

• Propose mergingCategory:Shipwrecks of British Overseas Territories toCategory:Shipwrecks of dependent territories of the United Kingdom
• Propose mergingCategory:Sports organisations of British Overseas Territories toCategory:Sports organisations of dependent territories of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: This is a followup toWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, implementing the "full merge" option discussed there. I am leaving out year-related categories to a followup nomination as they might need more complicated handling. --Beland (talk)07:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check your post for typos, because you are suggesting the creation of a "Catgegory" category tree.Dimadick (talk)08:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I thought I'd fixed that! Thanks for catching it; nomination corrected. --Beland (talk)08:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after "Years" the target names use "the" before "dependent". The names need to be harmonised one way or the other; I suggest removing "the", because e.g.Category:Treaties of dependent territories of the United Kingdom is consistent with siblings for other countries. –FayenaticLondon10:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removing "the" prefix. –Aidan721 (talk)12:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hurray for brevity! --Beland (talk)16:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per previous discussion.Marcocapelle (talk)10:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They actually should be switched from "British" to "United Kingdom"... i.e. Parliament has since started using the term "United Kingdom Overseas Territories -- UKOTs" etc. which is the country's name. The UK stopped using "British" a while back hance why the DOT.gb Country-code was retired and replaced by more popular DOT.ukCaribDigita (talk)06:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaribDigita: If UKOT has become the common name, then the thing to do would probably be to start a move discussion onTalk:British Overseas Territories. The proposal above removes the name "British Overseas Territories" entirely from the affected categories, thoughCategory:British Overseas Territories will remain (and perhaps others). --Beland (talk)08:40, 3 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suffragette 1911 census boycotters

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:convert to1911 census boycotters.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ConvertCategory:Suffragette 1911 census boycotters to article1911 census boycotters

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this can be listified, but I struggle to see how this is a defining category^SMason_Garrison04:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perWP:NONDEF. There isn't even an article1911 census boycott, so if someone would start that they may include a list too.Marcocapelle (talk)06:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft support: Almost half of the article1911 United Kingdom census is dedicated to this boycott by suffragettes. A category does not have to have a main article in order to exist, but this article comes pretty close. It just could use more expansion. There are also three sentences inSuffragette#WSPU campaigns dedicated to this boycott, as well as various bits and pieces elsewhere. It might still be difficult to justify this as a defining feature of participants, but if there were a separate article about the boycott, there definitely would be, or alternatively a cause for listification. If anyone were to write it, the boycott is to be understood in a list of actions taken by the WSPU and other suffragette movements in the UK in the early 20th century, listed inTemplate:Suffrage:
• WSPU march (1906)
• Mud March (1907)
• Women's Sunday (1908)
• Black Friday (1910)
• Battle of Downing Street (1910)
• (1911 United Kingdom census boycott)
• Women's Coronation Procession (1911)
• Great Pilgrimage (1913)
• Open Christmas Letter (1914)
• Suffragette bombing and arson campaign

I might give it a try if no one else does. Perhaps a better title would be1911 United Kingdom census boycott forWP:TITLECON with1911 United Kingdom census?NLeeuw (talk)07:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've turned it into a separate section which I have expanded with bits and pieces from other articles:1911 United Kingdom census#Suffragette boycott. I think it could very well be viable as a stand-alone article if more material were to be added. At present, much of the material relies on Liddington, Jill; Crawford, Elizabeth (2014).Vanishing for the vote: suffrage, citizenship and the battle for the census., without providing page numbers (which it should for verification, although I have no reason to doubt the information can be found in this book). But there are enough independent sources, which all seem to attest to this having been a somewhat significant event. The empirical impact is hard to measure, exactly because of the absence of uniform, quantitative evidence. But even if fewer than 1% of all UK women participated in the boycott, many suffragist men also participated in it, and it seems to have had a political and cultural impact that stretched beyond just the members of the movement itself. The protest took many forms, and seems to have strengthened the movement further on the way to partial success with theRepresentation of the People Act 1918. It's worth exploring that further, especially by combining bits and pieces of information about the 1911 UK census boycott from all articles currrently in this category.NLeeuw (talk)09:29, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

1900–1999 disease outbreaks

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:no consensus.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:1900 disease outbreaks toCategory:1900s disease outbreaks andCategory:1900 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1901 disease outbreaks toCategory:1900s disease outbreaks andCategory:1901 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1902 disease outbreaks toCategory:1900s disease outbreaks andCategory:1902 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1903 disease outbreaks toCategory:1900s disease outbreaks andCategory:1903 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1904 disease outbreaks toCategory:1900s disease outbreaks andCategory:1904 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1906 disease outbreaks toCategory:1900s disease outbreaks andCategory:1906 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1910 disease outbreaks toCategory:1910s disease outbreaks andCategory:1910 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1911 disease outbreaks toCategory:1910s disease outbreaks andCategory:1911 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1913 disease outbreaks toCategory:1910s disease outbreaks andCategory:1913 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1918 disease outbreaks toCategory:1910s disease outbreaks andCategory:1918 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1919 disease outbreaks toCategory:1910s disease outbreaks andCategory:1919 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1920 disease outbreaks toCategory:1920s disease outbreaks andCategory:1920 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1924 disease outbreaks toCategory:1920s disease outbreaks andCategory:1924 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1925 disease outbreaks toCategory:1920s disease outbreaks andCategory:1925 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1929 disease outbreaks toCategory:1920s disease outbreaks andCategory:1929 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1930 disease outbreaks toCategory:1930s disease outbreaks andCategory:1930 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1936 disease outbreaks toCategory:1930s disease outbreaks andCategory:1936 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1937 disease outbreaks toCategory:1930s disease outbreaks andCategory:1937 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1947 disease outbreaks toCategory:1940s disease outbreaks andCategory:1947 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1957 disease outbreaks toCategory:1950s disease outbreaks andCategory:1957 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1958 disease outbreaks toCategory:1950s disease outbreaks andCategory:1958 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1962 disease outbreaks toCategory:1960s disease outbreaks andCategory:1962 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1963 disease outbreaks toCategory:1960s disease outbreaks andCategory:1963 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1964 disease outbreaks toCategory:1960s disease outbreaks andCategory:1964 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1967 disease outbreaks toCategory:1960s disease outbreaks andCategory:1967 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1968 disease outbreaks toCategory:1960s disease outbreaks andCategory:1968 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1969 disease outbreaks toCategory:1960s disease outbreaks andCategory:1969 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1972 disease outbreaks toCategory:1970s disease outbreaks andCategory:1972 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1973 disease outbreaks toCategory:1970s disease outbreaks andCategory:1973 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1974 disease outbreaks toCategory:1970s disease outbreaks andCategory:1974 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1975 disease outbreaks toCategory:1970s disease outbreaks andCategory:1975 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1977 disease outbreaks toCategory:1970s disease outbreaks andCategory:1977 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1978 disease outbreaks toCategory:1970s disease outbreaks andCategory:1978 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1979 disease outbreaks toCategory:1970s disease outbreaks andCategory:1979 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1987 disease outbreaks toCategory:1980s disease outbreaks andCategory:1987 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1989 disease outbreaks toCategory:1980s disease outbreaks andCategory:1989 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1990 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1990 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1991 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1991 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1992 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1992 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1993 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1993 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1994 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1994 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1996 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1996 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1998 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1998 health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:1999 disease outbreaks toCategory:1990s disease outbreaks andCategory:1999 health disasters

Nominator's rationale: Not enough disease outbreaks in the 20th century to diffuse by year.WP:OCYEAR. Many of these outbreaks span multiple years, making decades an even better choice. –Aidan721 (talk)02:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.Marcocapelle (talk)06:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Decade categories are too big to be useful for navigation.Dimadick (talk)08:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• None of them is going to contain more than 20 articles, most of them far less.Marcocapelle (talk)10:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I said, many of the outbreaks span multiple years, so after merging, the decades will be populated with (via PetScan):

One could even argue that the decades could be upmerged. –Aidan721 (talk)12:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't agree that they will contain no more 20 entries and decades are too big to be useful.scope_creep^Talk08:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No more than 20 entries is not a matter of (dis)agreement, it is a matter of fact finding, see the count above.Marcocapelle (talk)10:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Did you even read my reply? NO MORE THAN 12! –Aidan721 (talk)13:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Aidan721: Yea, yea I read through the lot. I can't come up with any kind of argument to merge them. I think the granularity is important on its own.scope_creep^Talk15:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I really don't get the two opposes: it seems to me like categories with 10-20 elements are ideal for navigation.Pichpich (talk)22:52, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

6th-century famines

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:dual merge to the nominated target category as well as a newCategory:Medieval famines.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)22:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:6th-century famines toCategory:6th-century disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:11th-century famines toCategory:11th-century disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:12th-century famines toCategory:12th-century disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:13th-century famines toCategory:13th-century disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:14th-century famines toCategory:14th-century health disasters
• Propose mergingCategory:15th-century famines toCategory:15th-century health disasters

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation through at least the 15th century.WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk)02:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also toCategory:Medieval famines to be created.Marcocapelle (talk)06:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721: Thoughts?HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a good addition to me. –Aidan721 (talk)04:57, 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

14th-century epidemics

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:merge/delete.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:14th-century epidemics toCategory:14th-century health disasters
• Propose deletingCategory:14th-century disease outbreaks

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. Redundant category layers.WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk)02:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.NLeeuw (talk)07:33, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports trophies and medals

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:manual merge.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:Sports trophies and medals toCategory:Sports trophies and awards

Nominator's rationale: Clearly the same scope andCategory:Sports trophies and awards is already well-developed.Pichpich (talk)01:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Clear duplicate. –Aidan721 (talk)02:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually merge, most of the content is already in the tree ofCategory:Sports trophies and awards.Marcocapelle (talk)07:08, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visual Studio Code - Open Source distributions

Category:Thai people by populated place and occupation

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:dual merge.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose mergingCategory:Thai people by populated place and occupation toCategory:Thai people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Redunant category layer^SMason_Garrison00:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge toCategory:People by populated place and occupation as well. –Aidan721 (talk)02:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per above.Marcocapelle (talk)07:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk)10:15, 30 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Omani sportspeople by populated place

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:merge.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splittingCategory:Omani sportspeople by populated place toCategory:Omani sportspeople andCategory:Sportspeople by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. Redundant category layer^SMason_Garrison00:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk)02:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per nom.Marcocapelle (talk)07:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator.--Lost in Quebec (talk)15:01, 29 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.