Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 23

 &lt; April 22 April 24 &gt;

Category:Heat waves by location

 * 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) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Heat waves by location to Category:Heat waves
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layers. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2023 (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:Winter heat waves

 * 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) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Winter heat waves to Category:Winter weather events
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (1 article). No need to merge in other direction. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2023 (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:19th-century heat waves

 * 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) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 19th-century heat waves
 * Propose deleting 18th-century heat waves
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. No need to merge since already in sub-cat of century natural disasters. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I created the 18th century category in 2017 when rescuing the newly written July 1757 heatwave article.  I was merely matching the 19th century category, created in 2011.  Have no preference nor knowledge of other 18th century heat wave articles waiting to be written.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:12, 25 April 2023 (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:Tribes of pre-Roman Gaul

 * 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) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Tribes of pre-Roman Gaul to Category:Peoples of pre-Roman Gaul
 * Propose renaming Category:Tribes involved in the Gallic Wars to Category:Peoples involved in the Gallic Wars
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B Per precedents "Germanic tribes" and "Slavic tribes" renaming ancient / early medieval "tribes" to "peoples". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nederlandse Leeuw Can you explain some of your rationale for this suggested change? I am not sure if WP:C2B on its own is clear enough. Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've linked to the precedents above, but here are the full links: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional reasons for "tribe" specifically can be found at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_9. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not sure. This is more a matter of common name than a matter of precedents. The previous discussions were about merging (twice) and C2D (once), not about entirely abandoning the word "tribe". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As formulated this move is solely about the use of the word "tribes", which the nominator has made a point of arguing about in one of the linked discussions and elsewhere.  None of the "precedents" cited discuss the supposed anthropological viewpoint that the word "tribe" is insulting and pejorative and must therefore be replaced by a blander term.  It is somewhat tiresome to have to argue over and over again that the common use of terms like this in historical writing to refer to people who have not existed since antiquity is not intended to be pejorative, and that we ought not to ascribe racial animus to such writing, or seek to purge the language of words that were never intended to offend anyone in a context where one can only take offense by imagining one's self to be a representative of long-vanished groups, and overlaying twenty-first century attitudes toward nineteenth-century colonialism to first-century peoples.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I had occasion to look up Caesar, Gallic wars, a few months ago. I found that the word conventionally translated as tribe is civitas, which literally means a citizenship, but is also the origin of our term "city".  Interestingly in Gaul, the tribal names usually survive as those of cities, with the formal names of the cities (e.g. Lutetia - Paris) having been lost.  Civitas seems to refer to the territory and its people, making it similar to a nationality, except that they were not necessarily sovereign.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Peoples" is extremely vague and should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2023 (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:Confederate States of America legislation

 * 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, but retain edit history of older page. - jc37 08:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Confederate States of America legislation to Category:Law of the Confederate States of America
 * Nominator's rationale: What is the difference? Nagsb (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge, I can not tell the difference either. Category:Legal history of the Confederate States of America should probably also nominated for merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Add Category:Legal history of the Confederate States of America to nomination per Marcocapelle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural issue: Nagsb is a sockpuppet. Also, the former is far older, and Foo legislation (suffix) and more common than "Law of foo" (prefix). So reverse merge would be better.
 * Blimey! Yet another Dolyn sock.
 * I don't think a reverse merge is a good idea though. Fooian legislation is a child of Law of Fooland, e.g. Category:United States legislation is a child of Category:Law of the United States, Category:Indian legislation Category:Law of India etc. (Up)merging as nominated per WP:C2C is the correct procedure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding to nomination: Merge Category:Legal history of the Confederate States of America to Category:Law of the Confederate States of America per Marcocapelle, WP:SMALLCAT and WP:C2C. I guess because nominator is blocked I can adopt the nomination and add an extra item as suggested by Marcocapelle? The nomination still makes sense. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to keep the history of the older page, a reverse merge immediately followed by a rename to Category:Law of the Confederate States of America is in order. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2023 (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:16th-century Austrian historians

 * 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. No quorum. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:16th-century Austrian historians to Category:16th-century historians from the Holy Roman Empire
 * Propose merging Category:17th-century Austrian historians to Category:16th-century historians from the Holy Roman Empire
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, with the exception of Wolfgang Lazius these were people from the Holy Roman Empire who spent part of their life in Austria (which btw was just as well part of the Holy Roman Empire). The article Wolfgang Lazius may manually be added to Category:Austrian historians and Category:16th-century Austrian writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2023 (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:15th-century Austrian historians

 * 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. No quorum. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:15th-century Austrian historians to Category:15th-century Austrian writers, Category:15th-century historians from the Holy Roman Empire and Category:Austrian historians
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just a single article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2023 (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:Gymnote (submarine, 1888)

 * 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) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting gymnote (submarine, 1888)
 * Nominator's rationale: Category for a single French submarine. From what I understand, this submarine isn't part of a wider class of submarines based on the same model, so there's no potential for growth. (The counter-argument is that we could add the name of three notable designers who participated in the creation of Gymnote.) Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Per WP:C2F, one eponymous page. (Technically French submarine Gymnote (Q1) isn't quite eponymous, but no reason to speedy rename this per WP:C2D prior to deletion.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2023 (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:Former polities in the Netherlands
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 27%23Category:Former polities in the Netherlands

Category:St. Anthony's High School (South Huntington, New York) alumni
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 27%23Category:St. Anthony's High School (South Huntington, New York) alumni

Category:Former town councils in the Republic of 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: delete. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  14:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting former town councils in the republic of ireland
 * Nominator's rationale: In order to preserve the legacy of the previous category having been created more than a decade ago, I would suggest that this one I created recently be deleted and that Category:Town councils in the Republic of Ireland be immediately renamed to this title. A little cumbersome, but I think fair to the work of in creating the initial category. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both, it is not a defining characteristic of the towns in this category. The list in Town councils in the Republic of Ireland suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for the towns in question, being elevated to "Town Council" status was the single most important thing that happened to them in their history. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Swiss colonels
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  15:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting swiss colonels
 * Nominator's rationale: In Switzerland, holding the grade of colonel (or lower) is generally WP:NONDEF. The Swiss Army is a militia, meaning that all men are required to serve, and very many hold officer ranks (e.g., I'm a captain, and two people in my team at work are majors, but nobody cares about that in civilian life). Up until the 20th century, it was almost de rigueur for senior Swiss politicians and business leaders (i.e. the people we tend to have articles about) to also hold the grade of colonel in the militia. But they have articles because of their civilian accomplishments, not because of their military rank, which is if at all only mentioned in passing. Therefore, categorization of people at this rank is unhelpful. Only people at the general officer level tend to be professional military officers and are appropriately categorized as such.  Sandstein   07:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The personal and subjective appreciation based on a lower own rank is not a weighty argument to delete a category. We are talking about the Swiss armed forces and their military ranks, not just about the Swiss Army. Please do not generalize. The rank of colonel is part of the high command, as in any other country, regardless of the type of recruitment they receive. As reference, I translated the category Oberst (Schweiz) from the Wikipedia in German to create this category in English. Igallards7 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Colonels are field-grade officers, normally regimental or battalion commanders, not part of the "high command". But what matters for our purposes is whether being a militia colonel is a defining characteristic for a typical Swiss business leader or politician; in my view, it generally is not.  Sandstein   12:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: The rationales of the delete !votes have all been questioned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete — part of a convoluted partially developed tree of Category:Colonels by nationality under Category:Military officers by rank, and the rest of them should be deleted, too. Admirals and Generals are better defined. We've been deleting colonel categories since 2006.
 * And what would be the reason to delete the categories in 2023, even knowing that existence does merit the number of articles and without falling into overcategorization? Igallards7 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And what would be the reason to create this category on 2023-04-15, even knowing that since 2006 similar categories for Kentucky colonels (repeatedly), Swedish Army lieutenant colonels, British lieutenant colonels, and most recently British colonels were merged and deleted? WP:POINT?
 * If the existence of the category of colonels by nationality is not under discussion, because it is not overcategorization, the existence of national subcategories (the example of Kentucky Colonel does not apply in this case because even the nature of it is different) depends on what factors? There are enough articles about Swiss colonels (as well as from other countries) that it is not correct to ignore or obviate their existence. Or is the Swiss case an exception above all other nationalities? Igallards7 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:OCAWARD. Awards and recognitions are defining when they expand the fame of the recipient, not when they merely reflect their status. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to associate these honorary awards with a military rank. Although it can also mean an "honor", it is not per se. Igallards7 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not see the reason why the colonels of Switzerland, understood as a military rank within the category of colonels by nationality, do not exist. There are plenty of biographies of people who hold that military rank while on active duty, in the reserves, or in retirement. It is not in dispute why the person received such a rank, according to the criteria of all the Swiss armed forces that contemplate it. Igallards7 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As you say, the rank is clearly verifiable. I question whether it is defining enough to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Leaning delete but we should take a look at Category:Colonels by nationality as a whole and not make Swiss colonels an exception. (If we do, I'm pretty sure it will get recreated down the road.) Pichpich (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Aditionally, the Commanders of the Swiss Guard are also Swiss colonels. Igallards7 (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd favor deleting that as well in a future nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NONDEF. I do have a question: what do you plan to do with the subcategory Category:Commanders of the Swiss Guard? That does have a main article List of commanders of the Swiss Guard. It does not seem to lead to problems however, it won't be orphaned if this parent is deleted, and no manual merge seems necessary. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the answer is very simple and easy: the commanders are Swiss colonels. So is there a problem that part of the Swiss colonels (not all) who are in the reserve or in retirement, without losing their military rank, make a life outside the strictly military? Igallards7 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — this should have been deleted. The WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OCAWARD, and 17 years of precedent deletion rationales are only questioned by exactly 1 person, mostly WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Who now raises Category:Commanders of the Swiss Guard, which should be deleted as well. At least the colonels are notable enough to have articles. The commanders are mostly categorized redirects.
 * @William Allen Simpson there is a person against deletion arguing, yes, but we're talking about deletion arguments, it's not about counting votes. The arguments continue to be set out above. Igallards7 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing other than well-known Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I've not wasted my time responding to circular reasoning and proof by assertion, and am criticizing the lack of closing. No one person should be able to hijack a discussion by repeatedly complaining about each and every point raised by each and every participant.


 * 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:Austrian knights
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 27%23Category:Austrian knights

Category:England national youth football team
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:England national youth football team to Category:England national youth football teams
 * Nominator's rationale: To plural as it covers multiple teams. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge since there are multiple teams. SomeRandomEditor101 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Pichpich (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 22:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. GiantSnowman 22:15, 25 April 2023 (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:Legal history of the Ancien Régime
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: Rename Category:Legal history of the Ancien Régime to Category:Law of the Ancien Régime, and Merge Category:Old French law to that target as well. - jc37 08:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Legal history of the Ancien Régime to Category:Old French law
 * Nominator's rationale: Is there a distinction? French, Occitan and Russian Wikipedias also each have two categories, but I can't see what is meant to distinguish them, and they may all be duplicates created accidentally. "Legal history" categories mostly exist for current entities; siblings in mainly follow the pattern, but e.g.  where there is a lead article. In this case there is a lead article Old French law. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: reverse merge not tagged Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note on implementation: If these are merged, the nominated page (being much older) should be moved over the newer one at the target name. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Perhaps a reverse merge is a better idea? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Adding "history" in a category about a historical regime is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge. Ancien Régime is a specific term, whereas Old French can mean many things, and can be confused with the Old French language which is a completely different thing. Article Old French law explains that this is a translation from French term l'Ancien Droit, which, by using a capitalized Ancien, is an explicit reference to Ancien Régime. Also note that child Category:Laws and ordinances of the Ancien Régime also uses Ancien Régime. Place Clichy (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case I would suggest Category:Law of the Ancien Régime as the common merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that Category:Law of the Ancien Régime is a slightly better name. Place Clichy (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Further comment, quite a few articles may be purged as they have a weak relationship with law. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is debatable whether famous judicial cases are part of legal history. I guess your comment was a reference to e.g. Affair of the Poisons or Cellamare conspiracy, which were major scandals that led people to be actually tried and, in some cases, executed. Au contraire, other such famous cases currently stranded in e.g. could be moved to the legal history category, such as Affair of the Diamond Necklace, Pontcallec conspiracy etc. Place Clichy (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverse Merge or alternative rename to Category:Law of the Ancien Régime. Ancien Régime is as close to a main article as we have. - 23:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge, reverse merge or rename to Category:Law of the Ancien Régime. As long as we end up with a single category, I'll be happy. My slight preference is Category:Law of the Ancien Régime. Pichpich (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2023 (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:Kievan Rus culture
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: rename to Category:Culture of Kievan Rus'. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Kievan Rus culture to Category:Culture of Kievan Rus'
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D Culture of Kievan Rus'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. (Otherwise certainly change Rus to Rus') Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that most articles are titled Culture of Fooland (which is why I had RM/TR'd Ukrainian culture to be moved to Culture of Ukraine last year), but most categories are still Fooian culture: Category:Culture by country. Strange. Per WP:C2D they should all be called Culture of Fooland. Maybe we should do a mass CfR? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the Fooian culture is generally more useful as it includes the culture of Fooian diaspora, in as far as they maintain the culture of origin. With Kievan Rus' there is no significant diaspora that we need to keep into account. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Culture of Ukraine can still reasonably include diaspora culture, but there are many stateless nations (keeping in mind that countries are not necessarily states) and diasporic peoples (without a country as such). Jewish culture is not the culture of Israel, for example. —Michael Z. 14:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle why Category:Culture of Fooland can not include diaspora culture? Nagsb (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE —William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had in mind that the alternative would be "Culture in foo" but admittedly "Culture of foo" is more inclusive. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh, well I didn't expect this, but Dutch culture is a disambiguation page, with Culture of the Netherlands as the primary meaning. Belgian culture redirects to Culture of Belgium, but the opening sentence still says "Belgian culture". Flemish culture redirects to Flanders; here primacy is given to geography before language. German culture redirects to Culture of Germany, again putting geography before language (though Culture in Berlin uses in rather than "of"). And so on.
 * But as Michael Z. noted, there is Jewish culture (no Culture of Judaism). Culture of Christianity redirects to Christian culture. Culture of Islam redirects to Islamic culture. Etc.
 * I think that shows a strong case for country-related Culture of Fooland article and category names, but also a strong case for religion-related Fooian culture names. Is there an easy way to mass-nominate 200-ish categories for renaming? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For creating the list I use Excel (a fold down category tree can be copied to Excel), for tagging the category pages there is WP:AWBREQ (then tag one page yourself as an example, leaving the target empty). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle thanks, I'll have to try that! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --Nagsb (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE —William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2023 (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:Governments of the medieval Islamic world
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting governments of the medieval islamic world
 * Propose deleting officials of the medieval islamic world
 * Propose deleting ambassadors to the medieval islamic world‎
 * Propose deleting foreign relations of the medieval islamic world‎‎
 * Propose deleting governors of the medieval islamic world
 * Propose deleting viziers of the medieval islamic world
 * Propose deleting treaties of the medieval islamic world
 * Propose deleting subdivisions of the medieval islamic world
 * Propose deleting subdivisions of al-andalus
 * Propose deleting/manually merging diplomats from the medieval islamic world
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:CROSSCAT WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OR "the medieval Islamic world" wasn't a "country", it's a cultural-historical concept that has no firm geographic borders and certainly had no political unity (Category:Medieval Islamic world's main article Medieval Islamic world redirects to Islamic Golden Age, which obviously wasn't a "country"). It shouldn't be in the Category:Government by former country. All these are arbitrary containercats (all created by the same user in the last 3 years) that we don't need, and can delete without problem. (The only exception is Category:Diplomats from the medieval Islamic world, I recommend a manual merge for that one; though there is no obvious alternative, the category as such cannot stand). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I note that several of these pages use the Template:Medieval Islam Category, also created by the same user: who lived under the rule of Islam during the Middle Ages, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity or language. I think this serves to prove just how WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OR it is; "under the rule of Islam" is extremely vague and can mean whatever you want it to mean. I think we could also add "irrespective of their country/state/nationality", because "the medieval Islamic world" wasn't a "country"/"state"/"nationality". I'm adding WP:CROSSCAT to the rationale now, this is becoming a catch-all for all things vaguely medieval-islamic-world-y. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PPS: This goes much deeper: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Medieval_Islam_Category. I'll think I'll leave it here for now. We can do follow-up nominations once we reach consensus about this nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not so convinced of this one. Geopolitically in the middle ages, in the Mediterranean and beyond, there were mostly two blocs divided by religion. While the Christian bloc largely coincides with a modern continent (Europe) so we do not need a separate category tree for it, that is not the case for the Islamic bloc (bits of Asia, bits of Africa, bits of Europe). Besides in the Islamic bloc no stable countries were established, to the extent that we mostly refer to dynasties rather than to countries, and dynasties were often quite shortliving. So an overarching category is quite useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I shall have to disagree. Quite strongly, in fact; these sorts of generalisations are not what Wikipedia is for. To contrast the idea of the "medieval Islamic world" as if it were a "country", even if we were to accept this idea of a "bloc", no one would claim that (the) "Christian medieval Europe/world" was 1 single "country"/"state"/"nationality". The word "Europe" was barely used in the Middle Ages, and "Christendom" didn't cover all of it (lots of vast regions in the north and east were still predominantly pagan by 1500, lots of regions in the south and southeast mostly Muslim etc.), and also covered some areas outside Europe (such as Outremer, the Eastern Settlement in Greenland etc.). Christendom itself has also never been a religious/ecclesiastical "unit" and has been plagued by schisms ever since it sprang up in the 1st century (until this day we've got popes, patriarchs and whatnot, so there wasn't a single head of state or overarching generally accepted leader/ruler etc.). I could go on, but really, this is just as generalising as all those language family categories that we have been deleting. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that this is a country or nationality or continent, I am rather arguing that this overarches countries and nationalities in a much more meaningful way than continents would. It concerns a civilization. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Civilizations" don't have officials (ambassadors, governors, viziers, diplomats), governments, foreign relations, treaties, or subdivisions. Countries / states do. We should ask ourselves a very simple question: who appoints all these officials, concludes these treaties, creates these administrative subdivisions etc.? Not a "medieval Fooian world", does it? A government does. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are enough articles for categories of officials by dynasty then I have nothing against that. But as said, many dynasties were too short-living for that. The closest analogy is probably ancient Greece where we cannot expect every city-state to have its own officials subcategory. Or any other occupational subcategory for that matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Greece is currently a country. The "medieval Islamic world" is not, and has never been, a "country" or "state". It has always been politically and religiously divided (as Christianity/Christendom has always been as well). Category:Medieval Islamic world is not in the Category:Countries tree (for good reason), and a category like Category:People of the medieval Islamic world by state admits that rather explicitly. If it had been a single "state", there is no way to subcategorise people further "by state", is there? There is in fact a Category:Medieval countries in the Middle East, and I don't see "medieval Islamic world" anywhere.
 * The fact that Greece is currently a country is not relevant. People in ancient Greece did not live in modern Greece, they lived in a particular city-state. "Ancient Greece" is just a convenient historiographic concept, just like the "medieval Islamic world". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that many dynasties were too short-living seems to be contradicted by Category:Medieval countries in the Middle East, where there is a Category:Officials of the Fatimid Caliphate. And although Category:Officials of the Mamluk Sultanate is currently a Smallcat, 1250–1517 surely isn't too short-living to populate it? Just nobody has done it yet. Besides, 909–1171 is a bit shorter and longer ago, yet Category:Officials of the Fatimid Caliphate‎ has 3 C and 6 P.
 * Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world is just an unnecessary generalising arbitrary subjective containercat which doesn't help us diffuse people to more specific subcats. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, if enough articles about a particular dynasty are available, they can be diffused to their own subcategory, I am perfectly fine with that. It is still not a reason to delete the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason to delete these (only very recently and incorrectly created) parent categories is because they don't fit the countries tree. There needs to be country/state whose government an ambassador can represent. You wouldn't agree with Category:Ambassadors of the Low Countries, would you? That's because the Low Countries as such have never been a state/country with a single government that could appoint ambassadors to represent it to a government of another state. Same goes for "the medieval Islamic world". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for most of them; there is such a thing as the early Islamic civilization/commonwealth, which followed some common cultural norms and administrative practices, derived from the Umayyad/Abbasid model. A vizier in the court of a Syrian dynasty in the 10th century had pretty much the same functions as a vizier in the court of a Khurasani dynasty in the 12th century. Beyond institutions, even territorial subdivisions tended to survive regime change, and after the fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate, the medieval Arabic-language travellers and geographers described and popularized for their readers the Dar al-Islam as a distinct cultural sphere. I might support deleting only Category:Ambassadors to the medieval Islamic world, because an ambassador is sent to a particular country or ruler, not to an entire civilization. Constantine  ✍  17:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The same logic you employ for ambassadors applies to all of them. "Civilizations" don't have officials (ambassadors, governors, viziers, diplomats), governments, foreign relations, treaties, or subdivisions. Countries / states do. We should ask ourselves a very simple question: who appoints all these officials, concludes these treaties, creates these administrative subdivisions etc.? Not a "medieval Fooian world", does it? A government does. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon second thoughts, I withdraw my deletion support, because these categories are indeed meant only as parent categories, not to host individual articles. would you prefer a naming structure like 'Category:X of medieval Islamic states' analogous to Category:Italian states? Constantine   ✍  06:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That would seem to duplicate already existing parent categories such as Category:Medieval countries in the Middle East and Category:Countries in medieval Africa. Moreover, we would have to assess whether every single one of them complies to the definition criteria of Islamic states, which is contentious and takes a long time. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to manually merge all contents in the categories I nominated to those two I just mentioned (and perhaps Category:Former countries in Central Asia and Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe; the latter is currently in a CfR). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please also read what I said below about treaties being bilateral or multilateral agreements between countries/states that are signatories, and why "the medieval Islamic world" as such cannot be a signatory. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Other comment, Nl Leeuw's focus on countries is just not how it worked in the medieval Islamic world. There were no named countries, or at best we retrospectively name a "country" after its ruling dynasty. For example, the Fatimid dynasty, the Ayyubid dynasty and the Mamluks ruled after each other in roughly the same area. Is it the same country? The answer is both yes (because same area) and no (because different dynasties & the country did not have a name). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? That we should pretend that a huge region encompassing parts of multiple continents were all one great big "country" which had a single government appointing officials, concluding treaties etc. because people at the time forgot to "name their countries" until modern times? The term "medieval Islamic world" is just as modern as the names "Algeria" and "Tunisia". I think it's pretty obvious that we should treat those dynasties/empires/caliphates/emirates/sultanates/imamates/etc. as separate individual former countries, and not lump them all together as if they were one great big "country". We're not doing that with Category:Christendom either, are we? We categorise dynasties/empires/kingdoms/principalities/duchies/counties/prince-bishoprics/etc. as separate individual former countries as well, regardless of which (official) religion it or its reigning family had, or whether they could be found in Europe or not, in the Middle Ages or not. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that in the Christian world countries were named independently from the ruling dynasty. We don't e.g. have Capet Kingdom, Valois Kingdom, Bourbon Kingdom, Bonaparte Empire - instead we have France. That makes it a lot easier to create big categories by country and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle Funny, I thought we had Habsburg monarchy, Merovingian dynasty, Carolingian Empire, Bourbon Spain, Valois Burgundy etc. and were treating and categorising them as former countries, but apparently I'm wrong. Also, First French Empire and Second French Empire were totally not run exclusively by the House of Bonaparte, the July Monarchy was totally not run exclusively by the House of Orléans etc. so monarchists calling for the restoration of either one are incorrectly called Bonapartist and Orléanist. (Also, Carlism and Bourbonism exist).
 * Kidding aside, what do you think of my suggestion above to manually merge all contents in the categories I nominated into Category:Medieval countries in the Middle East, Category:Countries in medieval Africa, Category:Former countries in Central Asia and Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe (the latter is currently in a CfR)? That way we can avoid duplication, arbitrariness, subjectivity etc. and we do not have to assess whether every single item in them complies to the definition criteria of Islamic states, which is contentious and takes a long time (except for the last category, obviously, which you already agreed to rename to Category:Former Islamic monarchies in Europe). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not contentious in medieval context. Similarly I hope that nobody would ever argue that the concept of communist states is contentious when discussing 20th-century history. The concept does not imply that everyone in these states embraced communism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's test that comparison. There is a Category:Eastern Bloc. That is a legitimate concept. But...
 * The "Eastern Bloc" as such didn't have officials (ambassadors, governors, viziers, diplomats), foreign relations, treaties, or subdivisions. Its countries / states did. You might say, "Well, the Warsaw Pact was an Eastern Bloc treaty!" Not really, because the "Eastern Bloc" as such was not a signatory to that treaty. We should ask ourselves a very simple question: who appointed all these officials, concluded these treaties, created these administrative subdivisions etc.? Not the "Eastern Bloc" as such, did it? It was not a state actor, nor a non-state actor; it's just a generic term for a group of countries/states with communist governments, and those did all those things. It would be rubbish to create a Category:Treaties of the Eastern Bloc, Category:Subdivisions of the Eastern Bloc etc. It suggests an overarching political unity that wasn't there. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By their very nature, treaties are bilateral/multilateral agreements between (sovereign) states. No state/country, no treaty. That's why there is a Category:Treaties by country, but no Category:Treaties by continent (e.g. Category:Treaties of Europe) or Category:Treaties by region. You wouldn't agree to Category:Treaties of the Low Countries either, would you? That's because "the Low Countries" as such have never been a sovereign state that could be a signatory to a treaty. The same goes for "medieval Islamic world". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support — the problem stems from treating as a non-existant former country after renaming Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 1 to Category:Medieval Islamic world in parallel to the modern Category:Arab world. It would be reasonable to treat the Abbasid Caliphate and Fatimid Caliphate and Umayyad Caliphate (alphabetical, not temporal order) as a former empires. But there was no unifying medieval government over an "Islamic world". This is under Category:Post-classical civilizations in parallel with Category:Christendom. Admittedly, there is a bias in en.wikipedia. There is Role of Christianity in civilization but not Role of Islam in civilization. Also, Christian influences on the Islamic world but not Islamic influences on the Christian world.
 * @William Allen Simpson Well said. I agree. Category:Medieval Islam should have been renamed Category:Islam in the Middle Ages per WP:C2C per parent Category:Religion in the Middle Ages and per sibling Category:Christianity in the Middle Ages. For the same reason, I would also rename Category:Medieval Hinduism to Category:Hinduism in the Middle Ages and Category:Medieval Jewish history to Category:Judaism in the Middle Ages (compare Category:Judaism by century, a grandchild of Category:Religion by period, the parent of Category:Religion in the Middle Ages). Shall I make that a separate nomination or shall we await the outcome of this one first? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest withdrawing this nomination, and starting over with just Category:Medieval Islamic world rename to Category:Islam in the Middle Ages per WP:C2C parent Category:Religion in the Middle Ages and per sibling Category:Christianity in the Middle Ages. Note it already has the century categories.
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_8 serves as a relevant precedent in this case.
 * The September 2022 rationale for moving Category:Medieval Islam to Category:Medieval Islamic world was The category is about a civilization rather than a religion, but that's incorrect; it was in the Category:Religion by period tree.
 * By the way, the parent Category:Post-classical civilizations that was created only a few months ago (in December 2022) is also a highly WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. E.g. why are Category:Christendom, Category:Feudal Japan etc. in there? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @William Allen Simpson Withdrawal seems like a good idea, yes. How do I do that as nom? Do I just "vote" Withdraw while striking the nom or something? I've not done this before. Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I handled it for you.


 * 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:Rulers of Aleppo
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Aleppo to Category:Monarchs of Aleppo
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D main article List of monarchs of Aleppo. 'kings, emirs and sultans' = monarchs. Governors belong in Category:Governors of Aleppo. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. SomeRandomEditor101 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Constantine  ✍  17:39, 23 April 2023 (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:Burid rulers
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Burid rulers to Category:Burid emirs; re-parent from Category:Rulers of Damascus to child Category:Emirs of Damascus
 * Nominator's rationale: per WP:C2B List of rulers of Damascus, the bios themselves, and Burid dynasty repeatedly calling it the Emirate of Damascus; Government: Emirate; title_leader: Emir. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Constantine  ✍  17:39, 23 April 2023 (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:Heat waves in Japan
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond To the left! To the right! 15:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Heat waves in Japan to Category:Heat waves in Asia and Category:Weather events in Japan
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (1 article). –Aidan721 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom, but the second merge target should be Category:Weather events in Japan. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've adjusted the nom accordingly. Thanks. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge for now and wait for climate change to produce more heat waves in Japan, forcing us to recreate the category. Pichpich (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge for now per Pichpich. Certainly has potential for future growth, but WP:CRYSTAL. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2023 (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.