Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11

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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination for Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Nazi Germany; merge Category:Nazis who committed suicide in West Germany to Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany and Category:Suicides in West Germany. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Nazi Germany to Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany
• Propose merging Category:Nazis who committed suicide in West Germany to Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany and Category:Suicides in West Germany

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse by german vs west german. The intersection of nationality is only there to help diffusion, and I don't think we really need to diffuse by when/where in germany they died by suicide Mason (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the second per nom. Hesitant about the first because this would remove the content from Category:Death in Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the second as well. I'd also support merging the first per nom as well with the creation of Category:Suicides in Nazi Germany. I believe there are some articles in Category:Suicides in Germany that would belong there as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Although, it appears that category was recently deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:21st-century controversies by country to Category:21st-century controversies
• Propose merging Category:20th-century controversies by country to Category:20th-century controversies
• Propose merging Category:19th-century controversies by country to Category:19th-century controversies

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one (or two in the 21st cent) category in each category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Clone characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion to Category:Neon Genesis Evangelion characters

Nominator's rationale: Made by a blocked user, obvious WP:NARROWCAT that doesn't have any potential to get larger. Should be dual upmerged to both its parent categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support dual merger AHI-3000 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Fictional clones. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Azerbaijani composers by century to Category:Azerbaijani composers
• Propose merging Category:Maldivian musicians by century to Category:Maldivian musicians
• Propose merging Category:Architects from Northern Ireland by century to Category:Architects from Northern Ireland
• Propose merging Category:Guatemalan musicians by century to Category:Guatemalan musicians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in each of these categories, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Franco-Flemish composers. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Franco-Flemish composers by century to Category:Franco-Flemish composers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's nothing else in the parent categorym which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Women American football executives. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 23:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Women National Football League executives to Category:National Football League executives and Category:Women sports executives and administrators
• Updated: Propose renaming Category:Women National Football League executives to Category:Women American football executives per Marcocapelle's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All major sports leagues in America have had women executives but this is the only one which categorizes them as such. WP:EGRS since it is specific to a league (IMO, a very small target at this time) rather than the sport. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Marcocapelle AND previous precedent, instead of merging. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be kept as Category:Women executives in American football. If not kept, it should have Category:Women in American professional sports management as the second merge target instead of the more general Category:Women sports executives and administrators. Other than that I am not opposing the nomination per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, I would be in favor of sport-specific categories but not league-specific. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Omnis Scientia: does this imply you support the rename? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle, yes I would. I notice now that there already are sport-specifc women executive categories in Category:Women sports executives and administrators so this would fit into that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BUT I would prefer the rename to be Category:Women American football executives but the parent category would be Category:American football executives. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Category:Women American football executives is perfectly fine for me as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Murders of IDF soldiers to Category:Israeli military casualties and Category:Murder in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Duel merge as these are still military casualties Mason (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Israeli military casualties. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but exclude the two biographies to be from being put directly under Category:Murder in Israel. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if these people were actually killed on Israeli territory. The country which soldiers serve does not always match the location of their deaths. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what I meant too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_20#Category:Polymaths is persuasive precedent, and emphasized anew here, that "polymath" is ill-defined, subjective, or WP:SYNTH in most cases, and not a defining-characteristic intersection-category for all individuals that are in two or more subject-area categories (polymath). Several ideas for list-articles are potentially viable. In most cases, the inividuals are already in other "... people" subcats, so generally just remove from the "... polymaths" cat rather than merging. DMacks (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Polymaths by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Croatian polymaths to Category:Croatian people
• Propose merging Category:German polymaths to Category:German people
• Propose merging Category:Italian polymaths to Category:Italian people

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining Mason (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, per precedent (there is no Category:Polymaths). But just delete, do not merge, the articles are already in other categories by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Category:Polymaths was deleted after this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Firstly, what's the difference compared to other, very similar categories (e.g. philanthropists, dissidents) which already exist? Should we delete them? Secondly, this category has been deleted several times a long time ago because "it was undefined, which allows almost anyone to be included in it if they have demonstrated any sort of ability in more than one discipline or area of life" or so. But if you read the article Polymath, it is clearly defined: an individual whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects, known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems and polymaths include the great scholars and thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, who excelled at several fields in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and the arts. Furthermore, and last but not least (on the contrary), if a person is mentioned as a polymath in reliable sources, then this fact should be respected, and that's what the Wikipedia rules say, don't they? --Silverije 20:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for posting this here. The issue of defining is key. If they excelled in multiple fields, the person belongs in each of those categories, not a grab back category that effectively says that they belong in multiple categories. And what counts as different fields? Does that mean that biostatisicians are all polymaths because they excel in biology AND statistics? Mason (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. But if they excelled in SEVERAL, MULTIPLE fields, they belong to each of those categories, but also to the Category:Polyhistor as well. I see no reason why this person should not also belong to that category; there are other categories that similarly overlap (e.g. urban planners, architects, civil engineers, architecture writers…). BUT I REPEAT, only if, and it is decisive here, such a person is listed in the relevant sources (encyclopedias, lexicons, etc.) as polymath, so it should also be in Wikipedia, as stated in its rules. And you did not answer the question of similar categories (philanthropists, dissidents) in which a person can also belong to multiple categories? --Silverije 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I didn't answer your question about similar categories because those are not relevant here. The issue is that this category has been deleted by consensus several times on the basis of not being well defined. What has changed in the last ten years to make this category well defined? Mason (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom per Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Defining a polymath as someone whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects is too subjective for a category: what is a substantial number and how much knowledge is required from each? Defining a polymath by being called a polymath in sources is equally vague. If anything, a list may be more appropriate because that will allow quoting sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should defining a polymath by being called a polymath in sources be vague? If someone is a polymath in sources, then so be it. Or should we go against Wikipedia's rule WP:NOR and do our own research? --Silverije 23:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• How many sources would you need? What if sources contradict each other? Again, that is much better elaborated in a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be serious. I need no sources; Wikipedia needs. How many? As usual in any other article. Contradictions? As usual; why should it be something special here? --Silverije 19:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just Delete/Support in Principle If someone is defined by multiple things, enter them in multiple categories but the intersection is not notable. No objection to a list, but that can be outside of CFD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Armenian Roman Catholics to Category:Catholics from Armenia

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Armenian Benedictines to Category:Catholics from Armenia and Category:Benedictines

Nominator's rationale: merge, category contains only one article which is unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Most Catholics from Armenia are likely to be in fact Armenian Catholics, i.e. Eastern Catholics. This may be a side effect of recent splits/rename at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 16 § Category:Armenian Catholics and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 16 § Category:Armenian Catholic priests. I guess that the logical conclusion of these renamings would be to browse the categories and add all Armenian/Eastern Catholics that are actually from Armenia to such a category, but certainly not to confuse it with Latins. Place Clichy (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the first, to which I have added Thaddeus (bishop of Caffa); merge the second as WP:SOFTDELETE but to all its current parents Category:Armenian Roman Catholics, Category:Benedictines and Category:Armenian Christian monks. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: Category:Armenian Benedictines, I believe it can be kept as part of larger tree Category:Benedictines by nationality. Parent categories using "Catholic" are a bit anachronistic if directly placed at Simeon of Mantua, who died in 1016, but they are not really out of place as he was indeed a Benedictine monk. Intermediate category Category:Armenian Benedictines is totally defining for him, and certainly better than Category:Armenian Roman Catholics or Category:Catholics from Armenia. I suggest it should be kept. Place Clichy (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Place Clichy. Simeon of Mantua is in Armenian saints which are understood as Christian saints, so perhaps there is no need for a Catholic category. If he's the only notable Benedictine of Armenian origin, the single-member category is not very useful for categorisation. But if there's no consensus here, perhaps it would be better to have a fresh nomination of all the single-member subcats of Benedictines by nationality. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Mekhitarists follow the rule of Saint Benedict, so we may consider adding Category:Mekhitarists to Category:Armenian Benedictines, in the same fashion that Category:Cistercians by nationality is in Category:Benedictines by nationality. Category:Benedictines by nationality, and more largely Category:Members of Catholic orders and societies by nationality, is a set that's useful for navigation and there are plenty of one-page categories there. It's a situation not unlike that of Category:Argentine popes/Category:Polish popes, although with more potential for expansion. Place Clichy (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: procedural keep. This should be done as a mass nomination (@Mason). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:1981 Spanish novels to Category:20th-century Spanish novels and Category:1981 novels

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is the only year Spanish novel category. Mason (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't see how the number of other categories matters for this one. Nevertheless, I created some categories for other years over at Category:Spanish novels by year. Uriahheep228 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uriahheep228 please populate these categories with more pages, they all have between 1 and 4 pages in them. Mason (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the categories do not get populated beyond 4, I would lean towards merging the entire tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose this requires an extended nomination, containing at least all categories until 1990. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer merging all of 20th century years or even the whole tree for consistency. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The consistent thing to do is to keep all the categories. There's a good amount of notable Spanish novels from all these years, regardless of how many currently have articles. The category tree is useful even if some categories end up with only one entry (currently, 1981 is the only such case). Uriahheep228 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is plenty of scope to expand this category tree. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite, there are only 25 articles in the 20th-century category and not in a year category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge per Marco's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for Now per WP:MFN and WP:NARROWCAT with no objection to later recreating of the article count grows. But, for right now, having a 1-article category does not aid navigation. - 16:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge to grandparent categories. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Judo national governing bodies logos to Category:Judo logos

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Unhelpful to diffuse judo logos to this level of detail. Mason (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Either merge to parent Category:Judo governing bodies logos or dual merge to both grandparents Category:Judo logos and Category:Sports governing body logos. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Judo logos and Category:Sports governing body logos. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for just upmerging to the parent as this seems to have potential for growth. Respublik (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Category:Sports governing body logos by sport has a lot of double categories holding a single file. Respublik (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of climbing to Category:Climbing

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Single category in here that's unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Mason (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the subcategory is already in Category:Mountaineering which is a subcategory of Category:Climbing. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Climbing includes rock climbing (and other forms of climbing), which are not mountaineering, so the existing Category:History of mountaineering would not work. Per below, we could merge them into Category:History of climbing and mountaineering, or just leave them separate. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:History of mountaineering, and rename to Category:History of climbing and mountaineering. More articles could go into both these categories, but whether they are climbing or mountaineering is moot in places (and ice climbing and competition climbing can be added). Better to have a new category that combines them both. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That should be preceded by a merger of Category:Climbing with Category:Mountaineering (to which I would not oppose). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would be too big a step, and one that would require a lot more thought as they are big categories (and there are differences, which some feel very strongly about), and it may not be helpful for reader. However, sometimes it is more efficient to merge them on a specific category basis. Aszx5000 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile some articles have been added to the category but they are not specifically about history, so that leaves my earlier delete vote unchanged. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those articles are mainly about climbing history (history of rock climbing in various countries, and the history of milestones in various forms of rock and solo climbing). Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a few more articles now in the category that are primarily "history of climbing" (especially rock climbing) related. The structure also mirrors the structure in WikiCommons where there are separate "History of Climbing" and "History of Mountaineering" categories (both linked to in the en-WP categories). Other historical climbing articles will be added (e.g. history of ice climbing), so worth keeping at this stage. Would not recommend lumping it into the head "Climbing" category, which we should keep as clear as possible. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• These articles are Rock climbing in Australia, Rock climbing in New Zealand, List of grade milestones in rock climbing and Women's rock climbing in Australia. They are all four about rock climbing in general (and already categorized as such), but not specifically about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rock climbing in Australia and Rock climbing in New Zealand is 80% on the history of rock climbing in those countries (there is little else of value). List of grade milestones in rock climbing is 100% about the history of increases in grades in rock climbing. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that the list of milestones is about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional creditors and moneylenders to Category:Fictional people in finance

Nominator's rationale: Tiny category with only one member, made by a blocked user. Should be merged as unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would expect "people in finance" to refer to professional bankers, accountants etc. but that is the not case in the one article. Just delete? (Otherwise merge per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the one article, Jessica (The Merchant of Venice), is defined by theft and eloping but not money lending. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople by city in Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Kyrgyzstani sportspeople, and Category:Sportspeople by populated place
• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople by city in Tajikistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Tajikistani sportspeople, and Category:Sportspeople by populated place
• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople by city in Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Sportspeople by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Only contain 1 sub-category. Upmerge as appropriate below. Note Category:Sportspeople from Bangkok is already in Category:Sportspeople by province in Thailand so dual merge is not necessary in that case. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fictional sportspeople. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional winter sportspeople to Category:Fictional sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Wowee - only two tiny categories. A clear WP:NARROWCAT created by a blocked user that should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Science competitions. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Neuroscience competitions to Category:Science competitions

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 2 articles. Both articles are already in Neuroscience organizations so dual merge is not needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fictional cultists. No consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination on whether the category should be deleted or not. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional cult members to Category:Fictional cultists

Nominator's rationale: While I am not opposed to this category's existence, the more common term is cultist, not "cult member". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming AHI-3000 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, it is not a defining characteristic of the two articles. The subcategory should be kept though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't oppose deleting and merging the subcategory with Category:Fictional members of secret societies if no further cultists who were not leaders can be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming. Betther use of English. Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of the Republic of New Granada to Category:Republic of New Granada
• Propose deleting Category:Centuries in the Republic of New Granada
• Propose deleting Category:19th century in the Republic of New Granada

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layers for former country that only existed 1831–1858 i.e. in one century. Merge/delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_15#Category:Establishments_in_Gran_Colombia_by_century. Note: I have already manually merged some of the former contents. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete a historical country that only existed in one century doesn't need these layers. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: split. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1907 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1907 films by country and Category:Lists of 1907 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1910 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1910 films by country and Category:Lists of 1910 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1911 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1911 films by country and Category:Lists of 1911 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1912 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1912 films by country and Category:Lists of 1912 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1913 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1913 films by country and Category:Lists of 1913 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1914 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1914 films by country and Category:Lists of 1914 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1915 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1915 films by country and Category:Lists of 1915 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1916 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1916 films by country and Category:Lists of 1916 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1917 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1917 films by country and Category:Lists of 1917 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1918 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1918 films by country and Category:Lists of 1918 films by language
• Propose splitting Category:Lists of 1919 films by country or language to Category:Lists of 1919 films by country and Category:Lists of 1919 films by language

Nominator's rationale:

The mix of country and language makes the navigation and searching unnecessary complicated. Not all American films are in English. This seems to have been mostly been done for the Indian films as they are split by language (which isn't a valid reason for this imo). As a side note, I'm not sure how many of these currently have language articles so some might be empty after the split. --Gonnym (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nom. Possibly change the second target to e.g. Category:Lists of 2023 Indian films. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per nom Mason (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: reverse merge, i.e. merge Category:Upcoming Amusement parks to Category:Planned amusement parks. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Planned amusement parks to Category:Upcoming Amusement parks

Nominator's rationale: Categories seem to cover the same topic DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm happy with reverse merge. Makes more sense now I think about it DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per nom, the 2nd one is new and has a more promotional-sounding name (and improper capitalization). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to the older page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support revere merge Mason (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge Several "planned" parks were never completed. Dimadick (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge per @Dimadick:, leaves room for plans that fell through. - RevelationDirect (talk)

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 Category:Deities and spirits to Category:Spirits and Category:Fictional deities and spirits to Category:Fictional spirits. No consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination on the proposed merge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Deities and spirits to Category:Mythological creatures
• Propose merging Category:Fictional deities and spirits to Category:Fictional characters by species

Nominator's rationale: There's already a "Deities" category, and there's no specific article about the concept of spirits as used here. This is therefore a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT that should be merged into either "Mythological creatures" or "Legendary creatures". The only alternative name I can think of is "Supernatural beings", but there's no article about that either, and that can also be potentially subjective. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both categories, but alternately rename them to Category:Spirits and Category:Fictional spirits. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not all articles are about mythology. The alt rename is fine to remove redundancy in the category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: The point is that they would go into mythological and legendary creatures as appropriate, as I said in the description. I just picked mythological as the target because as far as I know the tool I use doesn't let you pick multiple merge destinations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For example Astral spirit or Holy Spirit in Christianity would fit in neither target and these articles are still about spirits. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle: Holy Spirit in Christianity is already in a subcategory of Category:Deities which would seem to contradict that argument, since Deities is a subcategory of this category. Astral spirit probably counts more as a "concept" than a being. It can be moved to Category:Theosophical philosophical concepts and was likely miscategorized here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are more articles like these. Besides it makes sense to keep the subcategories together. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • • The Holy Spirit is typically depicted as one of the persons in the Trinity. An aspect of the Christian god, rather than a distinct entity. Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Split if necessary. The concept of spirit as an animating force typically includes spirits of humans and animals, which are not perceived as deities. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: reverse merge, i.e. merge Category:Space navies to Category:Fictional space units and formations. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional space units and formations to Category:Space navies

Nominator's rationale: Totally overlapping categories. One of these should not exist, but I don't mind if it's reverse-merged either based on what title people think is better. The "Space navies" category has existed for much longer but has no real-world analogue. Another possibility is that the merge goes through as proposed, but then "Space navies" is renamed "Fictional space units and formations" as probably should have been done. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge Category:Space navies into Category:Fictional space units and formations, if only because the former has no real-life counterpart while the latter can be compared with Category:Space units and formations. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you prefer the former or the latter? AHI-3000 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I would have had a preference I would have been clear about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per above. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fictional organizations. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional political organizations to Category:Fictional organizations

Nominator's rationale: Most of these don't qualify as "political organizations" and have been miscategorized. When you eliminate those, this category is too small to be necessary and its members can be dual upmerged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE Mason (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem very true to me, all these discussions come down to whichever group of people dominate the discussion for a so-called "consensus". AHI-3000 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editing guidelines are right there for anyone to read. People link the relevant ones in many discussions. If you choose to ignore them, jump right into a massive category creation spree, and then think people are ganging up on you, that's on you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, only fictional political parties and fictional revolutionary organizations surely qualify for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Really just per truth in advertising since most of the contents either don't seem that political or there's clearer categories for them to go into. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: purge nominated category and THEN merge with target category. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional government investigations of the paranormal to Category:Fictional intelligence agencies

Nominator's rationale: When you purge everything that's not actually an article about a fictional government agency, such as TV series and franchises, this category is too small to be necessary. Not sure whether it should be merged to this target or Category:Fictional detective agencies, but it should be merged somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fictional paranormal investigation agencies, and purge any subcategories or articles that aren't about a specific fictional organization. Strongly oppose any deletion or merger of this category. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and merge per nom, since there are very few articles about fictional agencies in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge and Merge per nom. The title would lead you to believe the contents would be the investigations, but the actual contens are about government agencies. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:Fictional military personnel and Category:Fictional aviators. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional military aviators to Category:Fictional aviators

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary holding category with few subcategories. Per WP:NARROWCAT rules, should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this parallels well with the real-life Category:Military aviators. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Fictional military personnel, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual Merge for Now per Marcocapelle but no objection to recreation later should the direct article count grow, per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:Neon Genesis Evangelion characters and Category:Fictional mecha pilots. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:EVA pilots to Category:Fictional mecha pilots

Nominator's rationale: Frankly, I think this category is too specific to ever be necessary, and it can be dual upmerged into "Fictional mecha pilots" and "Neon Genesis Evangelion characters" without problems. If kept, it should be renamed Category:Neon Genesis Evangelion mecha pilots due to Extravehicular activity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge into both Category:Neon Genesis Evangelion characters and Category:Fictional mecha pilots. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional mecha pilots (automated merge) and to Category:Neon Genesis Evangelion characters (manual merge because some articles are already in Category:Clone characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn Will be relisted but with a different set of categories. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American male sportswriters to Category:American sportswriters
• Propose merging Category:Jewish American sportswriters to Category:American sportswriters and Category:Jewish American writers
• Propose merging Category:African-American sportswriters to Category:American sportswriters and Category:African-American writers
• Propose merging Category:Jewish American sports announcers to Category:American sports announcers
• Propose merging Category:African-American sports announcers to Category:American sports announcers

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish American sports journalists
• Propose deleting Category:African-American sports journalists

Nominator's rationale: WP:EGRS. Merge/delete as per nomination. For full disclosure: I created all but two of these. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: withdrawing this due to misunderstanding a policy. Will relist but with a different set of categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Jewish Americans and African-Americans both have unique experiences in sports journalism.[1][2][3][4]. You cannot claim that something fails WP:EGRS when it so obviously does not. Given the preponderance of sources about these topics, the question posed in EGRS, i.e. "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?" is obviously true here.--User:Namiba 17:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Namiba, not the first one though. Male sportswriters are the norm, not the exception. In fact, its the only one the sportswriters category sorted by men, something I didn't know when I made it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also to add: still figuring out WP:EGRS - its a very thin line between what is and isn't within its scope. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:African-American crooners. Refs found for this intersection, just needs MOS fix DMacks (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:African-American Crooners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No explanation or criteria for definition, unnecessary and unhelpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename Category:African-American crooners. The history of African-American crooners is well-documented [5][6]--User:Namiba 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Per Namiba, the history of African-American crooners is well documented [7]Polemic-nerd (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename with lower-case "crooners". Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but keep. per namiba Mason (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African-American crooners. Noting for the record that this was closed by Polemic-nerd as keep, but was reopened by Pppery as a WP:BADNAC after I made a request at WP:AN. HouseBlaster (talk �� he/him) 00:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As proposer here, I'm now prepared to withdraw the deletion request so long as the title is changed to include the lower case "crooners". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional Australian characters by descent to Category:Fictional characters by descent and Category:Fictional Australian people
• Propose merging Category:Fictional British characters by descent to Category:Fictional characters by descent and Category:Fictional British people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:Fictional European people and Category:Fictional people by nationality. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional European people by nationality to Category:Fictional people by nationality

Nominator's rationale: merge, there does not seem to be a reason to keep European nationalities separated from other continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge into both Category:Fictional European people and Category:Fictional people by nationality. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, fair point, it should be a dual merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual Merge per above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge into Category:Berber history and Category:Berber languages. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Libyco-Berber to Category:Berber history and Category:Berber languages

Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in this category which already are directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep all except for no consensus concerning Category:Berber former Christians (which can be speedily renominated). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Berber people by religion
• Propose deleting Category:Berber Christians
• Propose deleting Category:Berber former Christians
• Propose deleting Category:Berber Muslims

Nominator's rationale: delete double WP:EGRS violation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is being violated here? How is this any different from anything else in Category:Christians by ethnicity? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Berber Christians or Berber Muslims aren't a stand alone notable topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I don't see any issues with this or any other subcategories of Category:People by ethnicity and religion. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not excluding the possibility that more subcategories should be nominated, but it should be done case by case. E.g. Berber Jews is a notable topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose deletion for Berber people by religion,Berber Muslims, and Berber Christians. Berbers and Islam has an entire page dedicated to it.

  However, I'd support merging of Berber former Christians to berbers and former christians on the basis of the category being extremely small. If determined non-notable, all the categories should be merged into the respective religion category and ethnicity categories. Mason (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:Live albums by Brazilian artists and Category:Gloria Groove albums; no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gloria Groove live albums to Category:Gloria Groove albums

Nominator's rationale: Sole entry is a redirect. Not much point in keeping it separate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Live albums by Brazilian artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good call. Seconded. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual Merge for Now per WP:NARROWCAT wit no objection to recreation later should the article count gorw, per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Harford County, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Qualifies for speedy deletion/merging under WP:C2A Staraction (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, "Harford County" is a misspelling of "Hartford County, Connecticut" Staraction (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all four categories. (The two categories added later were added in the first 24 hours of the discussion, which is sufficient notice.) (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:15th-century American people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:15th-century Native American women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No one is defined as being American until the 16th century. Moreover the only page in this entire tree isn't even a person Mason (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whole tree exists just to house one article in three different places. Should probably also add Category:15th-century American women and Category:15th-century Native Americans as they won't be doing much different on their own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and tagging the categories mentioned by QuietHere. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:15th-century American women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:15th-century Native Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Fictional characters by occupation. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional vehicle operators to Category:Fictional characters by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Made by blocked user, no real life category parallel. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target inappropriate due to being a container cat, unless you mean for Terra Branford and Rikku to be decategorized. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: I've moved them both into Category:Fictional mecha pilots, now the category has only subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do then. Merge per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and purge the two articles. These are widely diverging occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional university and college personnel to Category:Fictional educational personnel

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subgrouping made by a blocked user. WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is a more coherent category than the previous one and we also have Category:University and college people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep for these same reasons AHI-3000 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fictional domestic workers. Categorization of the only page in the category (at the time of this comment) can take place at Talk:Shannon Rutherford. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional au pairs to Category:Fictional domestic workers

Nominator's rationale: Too few members to make this a viable category. Should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but deletion is a good option as well. This is not a defining characteristic of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Aycinena family. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Aycinena family in Central America to Category:Aycinena family

Nominator's rationale: All this extra information isn't needed Mason (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Or, should the surname be ambiguous then Category:Aycinena family (Guatemala) will suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:18th-century Central American people by nationality to Category:18th-century North American people by nationality
• Propose merging Category:17th-century Central American people by nationality to Category:17th-century North American people by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:18th-century Central American people etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:18/17th-century Central American people would only have one category in them. Effectively this merge would result in the central american cateogy being deleted for now. Mason (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right, that was an oversight. Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Wilhelmstrasse

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME & WP:NONDEFINING

This category contains articles about streets that either are or were named after Wilhelm II. They really have nothing else in common. If anyone wants to create a list article, all the category contents are already in this disambiguation page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories for roads and bridges named after people here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to listifying outside of CFD, but I was having trouble finding an online English source to satisfy WP:NLIST. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If someone in the future finds some WP:LISTN sources, the contents of the category as of this comment are Marshal Ferdinand Foch Street, Bydgoszcz, Wilhelm Strasse (which is a dab page which lists the other members of the category), Wilhelmstrasse, Wilhelmstraße (Wiesbaden), and Wilhelmstraße (Spandau). But before !voting to listify I would want to see some LISTN sources to avoid creating a page just for it to get sent to AfD. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Things named after Christa McAuliffe

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME & WP:NONDEFINING

Christa McAuliffe was the teacher astronaut who was killed in the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. Even if they weren't named after her, everything in this category would still exist but would just be named after a different astronaut (with one exception). All the category contents are already right here in the main article for any reader interested in this topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories here, here, here, here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the creator of the category: I hadn't read yet WP:SHAREDNAME but yes, that applies to this situation. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poxy4 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's in a narrative paragraph not a list, but the article are linked in her biography article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:History of Pembrokeshire. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:17th century in Pembrokeshire to Category:History of Pembrokeshire

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation. Upmerge for now as it only has one page in it Mason (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. DankJae 02:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: split as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Fictional female soldiers and warriors to Category:Fictional female soldiers and Category:Fictional female warriors

Nominator's rationale: Not the same thing and there is no real reason for these two things to be grouped together. This split would also apply to Category:Fictional female soldiers and warriors by medium and its subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting AHI-3000 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, per nom. Would Category:Fictional female military personnel perhaps be a clearer target than Category:Fictional female soldiers? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, I still think it merits an additional subcategory. At least as long as Category:Fictional soldiers is a subcategory of Category:Fictional military personnel. But I feel like both of those things could be merged afterwards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting We define real-life warriors as members of tribal or clan-based warrior cultures, as opposed to organized armies. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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