Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 10



Category:Television series filmed in Atlanta, Georgia

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Television series filmed in Atlanta, Georgia to Category:Television shows filmed in Atlanta, Georgia
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other category names. JDDJS (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2016 (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.

Abbasid Caliphate

 * 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: implement Fayenatic london's alternative merge. There's clear consensus that something needs to happen but differing opinions on how that should take place. The alternative merge seems to be a good place of compromise that most people seem to be at least somewhat supportive of. Perhaps allowing some time to see if this tree will develop further could be beneficial before diving right into more nominations involving this tree (although any lingering anachronistic issues should be taken care of with a separate nomination ASAP). -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:836 establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate to Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:836 establishments, Category:9th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, and Category:9th-century establishments in Asia
 * Propose merging Category:860s establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate to Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:860s establishments, Category:860s in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:9th-century establishments in Africa, and Category:9th-century establishments in Asia
 * Propose merging Category:9th-century establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate to Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate and Category:9th century in the Abbasid Caliphate. Further, manually place Al-Rahba in Category:9th-century establishments in Asia and Maghariba (Abbasid troops) in Category:9th-century establishments in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:11th-century establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate to Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:11th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, and Category:11th-century establishments in Asia
 * Propose merging Category:12th-century establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate to Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:12th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, and Category:12th-century establishments in Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:836 establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:836 establishments in Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:836 establishments by continent
 * Propose deleting Category:836 in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose deleting Category:830s in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose deleting Category:836 in Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:830s establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose deleting Category:830s establishments in Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:860s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:860s establishments in Africa
 * Propose deleting Category:860s establishments in Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:1st-millennium establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate by year
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate by decade
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate by century
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate by millennium
 * Nominator's rationale: Only six pages total in this whole tree. Not even enough to maintain century categories in the establishments tree. The typical year/decade targets in Asia and the Abbasid Caliphate would also be left with just one page, so upmerging to centuries on those. WP:SMALLCAT. ~ RobTalk 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- another thicket mown down. Keep up the good work.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is some kind of overkill going on here. Instead of developing trees, some users are trying to kill them in infancy. There is a general agreement that anachronism is to be avoided, but on the other hand past entities trees' are becoming deleted. I've personally begun developing this category tree and with some help Abbasid Caliphate can be a vast category tree - we are talking of a dominant Empire lasting for centuries!!!GreyShark (dibra) 05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal Comment - i think we should merge/rename all anachronistic Iraqi categories into Abbasid tree (already reviewed for historical accuracy):
 * Propose merging - Category:8th century in Iraq to Category:8th century in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose renaming - Category:8th-century Iraqi people to Category:8th-century Abbasid people
 * Propose merging - Category:9th century in Iraq to Category:9th century in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose renaming - Category:9th-century Iraqi people to Category:9th-century Abbasid people
 * Propose merging - Category:10th century in Iraq to Category:10th century in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose merging - Category:10th-century Iraqi people to Category:10th-century Abbasid people
 * Propose merging - Category:11th century in Iraq to Category:11th century in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose renaming - Category:11th-century Iraqi people to Category:11th-century Abbasid people
 * Propose merging - Category:12th century in Iraq to Category:12th century in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose renaming - Category:12th-century Iraqi people to Category:12th-century Abbasid people
 * Propose merging - Category:13th century in Iraq to Category:13th century in the Abbasid Caliphate
 * Propose renaming - Category:13th-century Iraqi people to Category:13th-century Abbasid people


 * Also similarly propose regarding other recently recreated anachronistic Iraqi categories:
 * Propose merging - Category:7th century in Iraq to Category:7th century in the Umayyad Caliphate
 * Propose renaming - Category:7th-century Iraqi people to Category:7th-century Umayyad people
 * Propose renaming - Category:4th century in Iraq to Category:4th century in the Sasanian Empire
 * Propose renaming - Category:4th-century establishments in Iraq to Category:4th-century establishments in the Sasanian Empire

Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't make a bolded vote twice. The alternative proposal can't happen as part of this discussion since none of those cats have been tagged but I would support that as another nom. ~ RobTalk 06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed for clarity.GreyShark (dibra) 14:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose original proposal: there clearly is much room for expansion, so clearly fails WP:SMALLCAT. At the same time, the category tree is overly fine-grained and whole sets of one-article categories are to be avoided, therefore merging up to, /, and / (trees to be created) would be okay. I'd also support 's alt proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be against "Arab World" cats, which refer to Arab World - a very ill defined concept. Theoretically Arab World can include every territory with past or present presence of Arab communities (all across the world). On the other hand, Arab League cat can be a well defined location, being a League of specific states. Furthermore, i would prefer to keep Asia as the top cat and not going into modern Middle East definitions, which is a pretty much Euro-centric concept (unlike West Asia).GreyShark (dibra) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support upmerges to centuries but strongly oppose an Arab world tree, both because that geographical area changes based on time period, is not well-defined, and overlaps the Middle East in the modern day. ~ RobTalk 16:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree with centuries; and also disagree with Arab world as too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge as nominated. Such a mess has been made, it's almost as if it's easier to start afresh with these issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge as nominated. Per GO and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * the Abbasid category tree has about 3 times more categories than mentioned (!) - how come you mention only part of the relatively large Abbasid tree? It creates a false image that there are not enough categories.GreyShark (dibra) 06:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just look at the Category:Years_of_the_8th_century_in_the_Abbasid_Caliphate, Category:Years_of_the_9th_century_in_the_Abbasid_Caliphate, Category:Years of the 10th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:11th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:Years of the 12th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:Years of the 13th century in the Abbasid Caliphate.GreyShark (dibra) 06:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are in the history tree, which I haven't included in this nomination. This nomination focuses on the establishments tree, although certain history sub-cats which are only an extra layer of categorization for establishments were included in the nomination. ~ RobTalk 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Alternative merge e.g. Category:836 establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate to Category:9th-century establishments in the Abbasid Caliphate and Category:836 establishments in Asia. Reasons: (1) Category:9th century in the Abbasid Caliphate is for events, not cities etc, and it is the establishment that is the event. (2) Category:9th-century establishments in Asia has a full breakdown by decade, year and country, so it would be wrong to delete it in small parts, unless there has been a wider consensus to do so e.g. at an RfC. Personally, I'd leave the existing categories as they are, but there is a consensus here to do something about the small ones, and my proposal results in less category clutter on pages, adding only two rather than four in place of one. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with this alternative as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2016 (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.

Category:Music by 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'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:Music by location and Category:Arts by location. (non-admin closure)  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Music by place to Category:Music by geographic location
 * Propose renaming Category:Arts by place to Category:Arts by geographic location
 * Nominator's rationale: Sometimes all you have as a reason is feeling. Geographical location feels more precise and better fitting than place. It also fits better to the parent categories name Category:Music by geographical categorization. CN1 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As always, before responding, please read my responses to other comments, as much insight into the matter is only tickled out of me when I have to respond to the thoughts of others and copying the info into the rationale feels redundant. CN1 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Alt rename to Category:Music by location following grandparent Category:Culture by location. If there is any advantage to "place", it may have a broader feel to it, more easily encompassing the place of origin of music as well as the place where is is performed; but IMHO it is not necessary to keep this word. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * CN1: may we add the intermediate Category:Arts by place into this nomination? I'd do it myself but I don't want to muddy the waters. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That suites me perfectly fine, go for it! Thanks. CN1 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Added. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there was no consensus on changing others from "location" to "place" at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_5. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At that time, I did not understand that even if we'd all agree that region, continent and country count as a place, it still would not mean that we should call the parent category ".. by place".


 * What all these subcategories have in common is, that they are defined by their geographic location.


 * What makes a place?


 * Its location.


 * So the thing the category actually categorizes by, is the location.


 * The discussion fortunately found no consensus, because some felt that location fits better.


 * CN1 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support alt rename, the word "geographic" is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2016 (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.

Category:Monumental crosses in Ireland

 * 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 and merge according to nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming and restructuring Category:Monumental crosses in Ireland to Category:High crosses in Ireland
 * Propose merging Category:Monumental crosses in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Monuments and memorials in the Republic of Ireland and Category:High crosses in Ireland
 * Propose merging Category:Monumental crosses in Northern Ireland to Category:Monuments and memorials in Northern Ireland and Category:High crosses in Ireland ++ and Category:Monumental crosses in the United Kingdom added 14 June
 * Nominator's rationale: All the member articles are about high crosses. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: the individual articles in the 2nd and 3rd categories should be removed, not merged, as they are already in the corresponding sub-cats for High crosses. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are part of the Category:Monumental crosses by country tree structure. Also, not all monuments are crosses, high or otherwise: Anna Livia (monument) is not a cross. If anything, the High Cross tree structure should be abolished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What has Anna Livia (monument) to do with anything? Merging crosses into "Monuments and memorials" doesn't imply that all those are crosses. The high cross tree is far more useful than this one, if one had to choose, which we don't. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - misread the direcrtion of the merger there so have struck those comments. I still think that the proposed category is a better container than "High". Outside of the British Isles, it's entirely possible that someone might conclude that it's part of a structure that includes Low, Medium, High and Really Quite High crosses. The current name makes this error less likely I think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support In terms of crosses "monumental" correctly means anything larger than about 3 feet, and I think almost all the "Stone crosses" category would be correctly so described. The Monumental crosses tree seems to contain a very arbitary mixture of larger high crosses and Celtic crosses, plus outside the British Isles ones that would be more accurately described as "colossal", eg Valle de los Caídos. I'd like to see clearer criteria, & a rename. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- Category:High crosses in Ireland is an appropriate category for a particular genre of archaeological structure. It is appropriate to have an all-Ireland category, as they date from many centuries before the 1922 partition.  They are monumental, but are not memorials.  They were perhaps originally the equivalent of a church building before any were built - a place where a congregation met - or a teaching aid.  Purge of anything that does not fit (e.g. war memorials).  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment I can't see how Category:Monumental crosses in the United Kingdom is viable if this nom goes ahead. Should it not be included in the nomination? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That contains things like market crosses, modern war memorials and the Dartmoor crosses that are not "high" in this sense, so I think its ok. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Laurel Lodged, I have added that as an additional merge target. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Alternative Upmerge the entire High Cross tree structure to Monumental Crosses. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2016 (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.

Category:People with dual American and German citizenship

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. The general consensus is that this category would set a precedent for a set of categories that would almost entirely fail WP:NARROWCAT and WP:CATDEF. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people with dual american and german citizenship


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. Are we going to create this for every possible combination? We would end up with 46 000 categories. Nymf (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The start of a slippery slope of overcating.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Better to categorize in both than create a whole new tree that doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete another requested enhancement candidate for being able to search for articles in 2 or more categories, but we don't want to start this morass. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For info: an intersection of Category:American people and Category:German people lists thousands of people (e.g. Albert Einstein). DexDor(talk) 10:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep German nationality law, as well as that of many other countries, typically forbids dual citizenship, so the individuals listed here are distinguished. Seriously though, I get that citizenship is a dicey subject but I don't understand the immense dislike for this category.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The category has a Kosavar refugee who came to the US via Germany and an NBA player born in Germany but who grew up in Utah. Neither one of these people seem defined by the nexus of American and German culture/citizenship. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what the cultural and/or political inclinations of these people are, this category is merely noting a significant legal anomalies.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects - not for "noting a significant legal anomalies". DexDor(talk) 10:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not just an interesting convenience intersection, but often a relevant, even WP:DEFINING aspect of biographies. For obvious reasons, dual citizenship is particularly relevant and regularly cited in WP:RS for sportspeople, politicians, but also for criminals, victims of violence abroad, and people eligible for diplomatic support. For other kinds of personalities it is casually cited, stressing a special relationship to a second country. It is also not replaceable by and, as these are diffusing categories. Jermaine Jones might be debatable, but Emre Can clearly is a German rather than a Turkish football player, as is German–Tunesian citizen Sami Khedira, in spite of their dual citizenships. Also, an intersection of and  would also yield people who gave up one citizenship to become naturalized in the other country. Would we end up with 46.000 categories? Unlikely, as many combinations are legally impossible, nonexistant or negligible. Would it be a problem? No, we have an almost fully developed tree this would be a subscheme of. --PanchoS (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom etc. DexDor(talk) 10:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Such people will have their former identity recorded a normal expatriate or descent category. Rules on nationality vary.  Those with dual British and foioan nationality would be so numerous that we would not want to have anything of the kind.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow expansion.
 * Being a dual citizen may be often cited in RSs, but RSs often (e.g. when referring to criminals and victims) use phrases like "a married father of 2" - i.e. not every fact that may be important to include in a biography is a good characteristic to categorize an encylopedia article by (categorization should primarily be by why the person is in the encyclopedia). Why is diffusing categories relevant? DexDor(talk) 06:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't need separate categories for every single combination of citizenship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2016 (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.

Category:Crux gemmata

 * 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. The arguments against are stronger. While set categories are generally plural, we also must use the WP:COMMONNAME where possible (which has no plural in English) and our guidelines also say we should use the names of main articles where possible. We often have exceptions to the usual singular/plural rules for categorization where there exist exceptions to singular/plural rules in the English language. This appears to be one of those cases. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Crux gemmata to Category:Jewelled crosses
 * Nominator's rationale: We use plural names for set categories holding articles about individual objects. The main article is Crux gemmata and the Latin plural would be cruces gemmatae, but that Latin plural is not a recognised English expression, so let's use English. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree the Latin plural would be OTT, but these are normally called by the Latin name in sources - really, not every Jewelled cross is a crux gemmata (if small enough to be worn round the neck for example). Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * good point, but I can't find any articles on jewelled cross pendants. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we may not have any, but certainly could. I'm not sure this is a problem that really needs fixing. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've found one - Trumpington pectoral cross! The one at Durham, found inside St Cuthbert's coffin is also certainly notable. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- While in theory this should be plural, it would be OTT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 12 June 2016


 * 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.

Category:Social problems

 * 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: upmerge as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Social problems to Category:Social issues
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the difference between Social problems and Social issues is not clear. In article space, social problem is a redirect to social issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support also in terms of POV. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Johnbod. What may constitute a social "problem" in one context, may in other contexts be uncontroversial, such as, or just a regular societal task, such as coping with or handling . --PanchoS (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2016 (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.

Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players

 * 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 and merge to Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball) players. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting/merging Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players (specifics to be determined)
 * Included in nomination/discussion Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players
 * Nominator's rationale: This is a confusing two categories. It appears a bunch of teams happen to share a name, but they're completely unrelated otherwise. For some reason, they're even sharing an article at Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball). We could try splitting these by iterations, although the information in the article makes it hard to know where one team starts and ends. We could also split by league. Alternatively, we could give up on splitting and merge Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players here. It makes little sense to have one split out and all the rest not. Also, as it stands, Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players is an ambiguous name when we have the other category in existence. ~ RobTalk 06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. My preference for now would be to merge Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players to Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players and then rename Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players to Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball) players to match the article Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball). The only reason I suggest merging instead of splitting by league is I think splitting by league might be a big job that would be difficult to implement given the number of different leagues that are involved. If someone has good sources that would make splitting by league simple, then I could support that, but I'm not sure we have enough info in the article to do it successfully right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If we merge, I support that rename. ~ RobTalk 06:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge in the 1877. The rule that I apply to this is "one franchise: one category".  If this category is worth having at all should it not be merged to Category:Syracuse Stars players?  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * part of the issue here is that the categories involve multiple franchises that just happen to have the same name. But with the current sources it's not easy to figure out which players played for which particular franchise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is indeed the issue. Multiple times, a franchise disbanded, only to have an entirely new but unrelated franchise resurrect the name. I'm not sure why these distinct franchises share an article, which is probably not desirable. ~ RobTalk 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, and merge Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players into the larger category. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator. I'm still not entirely convinced a merged category is the best outcome, but I don't oppose it. It's clearly better than what we have now, and I agree with that we probably don't have enough information to make a sensible split here. ~ RobTalk 22:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also tempted to say that we should just leave things basically as is, with Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players being a subcategory of a renamed Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball) players. Someone has separated out the 1877 players, so it does seem somewhat of a step back to merge them back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge basically per Peterkingiron. Although there have been gaps in time, although the teams played in different leagues, we should consider that 19th- and early 20th-century people in Syracuse named them the same to stress the continuity. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2016 (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.

Category:Insects of Oman

 * 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: upmerge as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Insects of Oman to Category:Insects of the Middle East
 * Propose merging Category:Insects of Israel to Category:Insects of the Middle East (also upmerge list and subcat to Israel)
 * Propose merging Category:Insects of Lebanon to Category:Insects of the Middle East
 * Propose merging Category:Insects of Saudi Arabia to Category:Insects of the Middle East (also upmerge list articles to Saudi Arabia)
 * Propose merging Category:Insects of Syria to Category:Insects of the Middle East
 * Propose merging Category:Insects of Yemen to Category:Insects of the Middle East (also upmerge list article to Yemen)
 * Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Amyna axis is found in Oman is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that species. Another issue is that these categories tend to be very incomplete - for example Category:Insects of Yemen currently contains 15 articles, but there are over 100 butterfly species alone in Yemen.  Examples of previous discussions about categorizing animals by whether they occur in small (on a global scale) countries: insects, Middle East. DexDor(talk) 06:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge – per nom and similar discussions (examples of User:NotWith's many creations). Oculi (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge – per nom. In this case a regional category seems to make more sense. Insects do not seem to care about political borders. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2016 (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.

Category:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic

 * 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 Category:History of the Tuvan People's Republic and Category:History of Tuva, but delete the rest ... without prejudice to recreating them if there is a significant number of articles to populate them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic to Category:1934 establishments in Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:1930s establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:20th-century establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic by century
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Tuva
 * Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Tuva
 * Propose deleting Category:History of Tuva by period
 * Propose deleting Category:1934 in the Tuvan People's Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic by year
 * Propose deleting Category:1930s in the Tuvan People's Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic by decade
 * Propose deleting Category:Decades in the Tuvan People's Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:History of the Tuvan People's Republic by period
 * Propose deleting Category:20th century in the Tuvan People's Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:History of the Tuvan People's Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:History of Tuva
 * Nominator's rationale: One page for all of these categories, which clearly provides no useful classification. Upmerge to the most relevant establishments category and then delete the empty categories as per WP:SMALLCAT. And no, you didn't misread; this entire tree is for a single page. Note that the single page is already in Category:Tuva (which would have been the other plausible upmerge target). ~ RobTalk 05:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. This is categorization ad absurdum. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm making an exception for Category:History of the Tuvan People's Republic further down in the discussion and, if that category is kept, its parent Category:History of Tuva should be kept as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete It's like a treasure hunt to find Tuvan akşa!RevelationDirect (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- Do we really need more than a single category for this short-lived polity? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all to category:Tuvan People's Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 19:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, to be more precise, to Category:History of the Tuvan People's Republic, that is an obvious second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Remarkably specific, though not in a good sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt rename to ; Keep ; Delete the rest. A single category should stay for this historic entity, with Tuvan People's Republic‎ being the main article. Then there's Tuvan akşa, 1929 Tuvan coup d'état, Postage stamps and postal history of Tannu Tuva, List of leaders of Communist Tuva (if split), and a  should be possible, too. For the "History of Tuva" category, Tuva still being a federal subject of Russia, there is sufficent room for expansion, too. --PanchoS (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this can better be discussed in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The rename aspect maybe. There's however no consensus to delete, and deleting IMHO goes too far, as well. We want to cut down on overcategorization, not purge that former Republic entirely from our category tree. --PanchoS (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I've added a comment on my earliest support vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2016 (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.

Category:Mammals of Iran

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mammals of iran


 * Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted last year - categorizing by countries (rather than by larger regions) leads to a large number of category tags on some articles and often (as currently in this case) the category forms a very incomplete list. Lists (in this case List of mammals of Iran) are a much better way to cover this information.  The one article currently in this category is already in Category:Mammals of the Middle East so no upmerge is needed. DexDor(talk) 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a category with a single item. Dimadick (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons as before and as an improper re-creation. WP:G4. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2016 (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.

Category:Top lists

 * 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, but weakly. NO sign of any great enthusiasm for these categories, bur definitely no consensus to delete. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Top lists to Category:Lists of superlatives.
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as duplication of Category:Lists of superlatives. Trivialist (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, in addition to what Fayenatic london mentioned, there is also the element of objectivity. Items in the Lists of superlatives are objectively measurable superlatives while Top lists mostly contains top items based on election or judgment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I think this might be an exception to WP:TOPTEN since we're not grouping by the items on that list but the lists themselves and that may be defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2016 (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.

Category:Glimcher Realty Trust

 * 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: Renamed. (non-admin closure)  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 01:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Glimcher Realty Trust to Category:WP Glimcher
 * Nominator's rationale: Glimcher Realty Trust no longer exists. The company is now known as WP Glimcher, and the WP Glimcher name is used on their malls, such as this page, which says "Managed by WP Glimcher" at the bottom of the page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename if Kept per nom. I wouldn't be opposed to a broader discussion of whether individual properties were defined by their REIT. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2016 (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.

Category:2016 in San Jose, California
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2016 in san jose, california


 * Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow-up nomination to the discussions at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 28. This should likely be discussed as well, especially given that the parent Category:2016 in the San Francisco Bay Area has been deleted. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion for or against deletion; this is merely procedural. ~ RobTalk 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The article is adequatedly parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. Overly narrow, given the content we have. --PanchoS (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2016 (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.

Category:2016 in San Francisco, California
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Any further nomination should consider this alongside Category:2014 in San Francisco, California. It might want to consider merger to multiple parents rather than outright deletion, and to consider these categories in the context of Category:2000s in San Francisco, California and  Category:2000s in San Francisco, California. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2016 in san francisco, california


 * Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow-up nomination to the discussions at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 28. This should likely be discussed as well, especially given that the parent Category:2016 in the San Francisco Bay Area has been deleted. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion for or against deletion; this is merely procedural. ~ RobTalk 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The article is adequately parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't see how this is procedurally a follow-up of any of these CfDs. The category is sufficiently populated, with San Francisco being a city that should generate enough content for per-year categories, at least for the more recent years. --PanchoS (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that we deleted a city and year category for San Jose and deleted the parent of this category, it seemed worth a discussion. (Still not expressing an opinion.) ~ RobTalk 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but has so much more content than  that the two cases are very different. --PanchoS (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep at least for the for the years of the 2010s decade. It looks like SF generates just enough content to populate these categories decently. If not kept, it should be upmerged to its parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2016 (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.

Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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/rename/delete as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge:
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in China to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in China
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Colombia to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Colombia
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Egypt to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Egypt
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in England to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in England
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Iran to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Iran
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Israel to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Israel
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Japan to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Japan
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Morocco to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Morocco
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Northern Ireland to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Northern Ireland
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Nigeria to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Nigeria
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Scotland to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Scotland
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Venezuela to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Venezuela
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Wales to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Wales
 * Rename:
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Afghanistan to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Afghanistan
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Algeria to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Algeria
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Costa Rica to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Costa Rica
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Ecuador to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Ecuador
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Iraq to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Iraq
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Mali to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Mali
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Papua New Guinea to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Papua New Guinea
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in South Korea to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in South Korea
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Vietnam to Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Vietnam
 * Delete:
 * Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in the United Kingdom (will be emptied if the merges for England, NI, Scotland, and Wales take place)
 * Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in the United States (all are appropriately categorized under a "Wikipedia categories named after populated places in STATE" category)


 * Nominator's rationale: As a follow up to this recent discussion, I suggest that for these hidden "administrative" categories, we do not need to draw distinctions between cities and other types of populated places. So I suggest that we eliminate the tree in favour of the broader  tree. I do not believe that drawing a distinction between different types of populated place is useful in the administrative context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – there is no need to split these admin categories into types of place. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see the advantage of this technical breakdown by type of populated places. (Note, though, that I also don't see the advantage of this entire category tree.) RevelationDirect (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Other "Named After" Nomination There is an open nomination for Category:Wikipedia categories named after awards located here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. I'm not even sure there is an agreed international definition of what constitutes a city.Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In federal countries, there's often not even intra-country agreement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete wholly unnecessary self-reference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (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.

Category:Oceanic string quartets
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: upmerge to Category:String quartets. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting oceanic string quartets


 * Nominator's rationale: String quartets are categorised by country, not by continent. Further, the adjective from Oceania is Oceanian, not Oceanic (an oceanic string quartet would be one situated in the middle of an ocean, not one in Oceania).  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:String quartets, otherwise the NZ one will be lost from this hierarchy. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:06, 10 June 2016 (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.

Category:Cyprus peace process
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cyprus peace process to Category:Cyprus reconciliation process
 * Nominator's rationale: Not saying the situation in Cyprus was outright "peaceful", it is no longer determined by a violent conflict. The ongoing process is about reconciliation or, more precisely, about the possible reunification of Cyprus. PanchoS (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - frankly i'm neutral, but for others i would like to note that "Cyprus peace process" has 11200 hits on Google, while "Cyprus reconciliation process" has 102 hits on Google.In Google Books (mostly reliable sources) - we have 364 hits for "Cyprus peace process" and none for "Cyprus reconciliation process". By the way, we certainly need an article on this topic, so when this discussion is finished, i shall start one.GreyShark (dibra) 11:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As soon as someone creates a stub article on the topic, I'll favor speedily renaming this category to match it. In the mean time, I have no preference and no objection. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "Cyprus reunification process"? The articles on various plans use this word as the goal. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * pinging contributors again. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually started writing an article about the (proposed) Reunification of Cyprus (no, not the currently linked Annan Plan) a few weeks ago. Of course that reunification process is not completed, and it may fail again. But even if there were a full breakdown of the process, it probably won't ever be abandoned as an idea, similar to the Korean reunification, the Unification of Romania and Moldova or the Chinese unification, but different to these in that it isn't (necessarily) based on ethnic nationalism. Actually, this is a slightly different perspective to the reconciliation process that indeed in the literature is usually referred to as "peace process". I'm happy to withdraw my nomination until the dust has settled, but would like to invite you,, and others to team up with me in writing one or even both articles on this topic. This is no talk forum here, but we might want to use this discussion to come up with a plan how to organize the topic and basically how to proceed from here. --PanchoS (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose nomination, reconciliation isn't quite at stake (yet), so either keep or rename to Category:Cyprus reunification process. Also, I would prefer Category:Cyprus reunification process over Category:Reunification of Cyprus as may have suggested in the later discussion, in order to keep the category focused on concrete steps that are taken towards reunification. Neither Korea nor Romania or China have a reunification category because in their case reunification is for the time being merely a theoretical concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 03:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as is consistent with Category:Northern Ireland peace process, where levels of violence etc. are similar. There may be desires for reunification (on both islands), but it's WP:CRYSTAL to suggest that they're imminent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination per discussion. --PanchoS (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2016 (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.

Category:Fireworks festivals in Canada
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Fireworks festivals in Canada to Category:Fireworks in Canada, also merging the current content to Category:Fireworks festivals in North America and Category:Festivals in Canada
 * Propose renaming Category:Fireworks festivals in the United States to Category:Fireworks in the United States, also merging the current content to Category:Fireworks festivals in North America and Category:Festivals in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a category could be (re)created. PanchoS (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm listed as the original creator here, but that's only because I was the closer of the original discussion, which nominated some categories for deletion, but listed this for simple renaming as it was larger than the deletion candidates — so my action as closer was to rename this as nominated, but to relist the deletion candidates as a consensus had not quite formed on that part of the nomination. However, as the relisted discussion, linked by PanchoS above, achieved a new consensus about how to handle this and the USian sibling, I have no objection to the nomination. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Fireworks festivals is a subcategory of Category:Fireworks shows but both categories seem to contain the same type of events. Perhaps it's feasible to keep the bigger country categories by merging festivals and shows. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (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.

Category:Cartography journals
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: upmerge to both Category:Geography journals and Category:Cartography. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cartography journals


 * Nominator's rationale: Cat contains 1 article and 2 redirects. Even if there were more entries, I don't really see the utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals". Upmerge to Category:Geography journals. Randykitty (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. did you try googling for "cartography journals"? it'd have readily provided an abundance of such publications, thus demonstrating the potential for growth of this category. the fact that you see no utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals" only shows how much you know about the subject. not only is cartography a notable topic on its own, but it's also not entirely contained within geography, re: navigation, surveying, geodesy, etc. your proposal is equivalent to deleting a medical specialty journal category. fgnievinski (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: as I said, even if there exist more journals, I don't see any need to split this category off. Cartography belongs in geography. --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's clear that this is too small to justify a category at its current size. The question that should be discussed further is whether there's potential for growth or not.
 * Support while there are many cartographic associations of which many have their own journal, the journals themselves are apparently not notable, given the large amount of redirects in this category. The two articles Terrae Incognitae (journal) and Imago Mundi may be upmerged, probably also to Category:Cartography. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose While cartography and geography have some overlap, cartography is not wholly in geography. Topography of the Moon, Brain mapping, human genome map--these could all be considered as topics in cartography, but not geography. Hence. there is utility in separating these two fields. I understand the smallcat motivation for deletion, but this cat has links to both Category:Geography journals and Category:Cartography. If this cat is deleted, Marcocapelle has the right idea--articles need to be upmerged to both parent categories, so the journals don't lose their link to cartography. In terms of potential for growth, Journals in Cartography, GIS, and Geovisualization shows 22 journals with impact factors and thus probably notable. There seems some potential for growth, but the articles need to be written. --Mark viking (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that grouping together journals on subjects as diverse as brain mapping, genetic mapping, Moon topography, and the history of cartography (in the sense of making maps of the Earth) makes no sense at all. Indeed, none of these subjects (except for the history one) is in the category "cartography". I am quite certain that readers of, say, Human Brain Mapping would be flabbergasted to find that journal categorized as a "cartography journal" (which in addition is a subcat of "Earth and atmospheric sciences journals"). Heck, I am sure that even cartographers will not consider those subjects to be part of cartography. --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am, or was, a neuroscientist. We used mapping techniques--Voronoi diagrams, chloropleth maps, traditional map color LUTs-- all the time in mapping studies of the cortex. And we called them maps. It is Human Brain Mapping, not Human Brain Plotting. Cartography is about map making. This historically meant geographic map-making, but the field has broadened in scope since then to encompass general visualization techniques for spatial information. --Mark viking (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is all true, yet nobody has ever called this kind of mapping "cartography". That term has been used almost exclusively for geographical mapping (I'm sure you'll be able to find the odd example where somebody used "cartography", but my point is that 99% of the time people do not associate brain or genetic mapping with "crtography). Nobody ever talks about "Human Brain Cartography" or "gene cartography". --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2016 (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.