Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 10

 &lt; July 9 July 11 &gt;

Category:PAX (event)

 * 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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting pax (event)
 * Nominator's rationale: Category with only two articles. One the main topic, and the other a list. Now that is just redundant. Articles are also already located in "Penny Arcade (webcomic)" QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, the two articles are already interlinked in the body text of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Sephirot

 * 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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Sephirot to Category:Sefirot
 * Nominator's rationale: The corresponding article is titled 'Sefirot', which is also used throughout (most) of the related articles and on nav templates. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Rename, this seems to be a straightforward case of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:12th-century Arab 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 to Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world. There is a lot going on here, and to be honest I am not sure why this was relisted three times. I think that the first relist was good, but there was consensus afterwards the second week for a regular-direction merge. I will  myself for not tagging Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world. Anyways, with that paperwork out of the way: there is clear consensus that the category should not exist, and after six weeks it is time for this WP:BARTENDER to make a decision. Merging as proposed seems the best outcome as it has both majority support and is the easiest for further refinement in a subsequent nomination of Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:12th-century Arab historians to Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world
 * Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge to 12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world Mason (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Thoughts on reverse merging? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have been making efforts to phase out the Category:Medieval Islamic world WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT tree, step by step. I gave it a break in September, but I still think the whole tree should be phased out. Isolation is not a problem; the real issue is creating pseudo-historical unity where there was none for WP:POV reasons. NLeeuw (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternative merge target? Such as 12th-century historians?Mason (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging Nederlandse Leeuw. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 22:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a Reverse merge would work, at least for those who were Arab. We should check for Persian, Turkic etc. historians in the MIW cat. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * E.g. Basil bar Shumna is described as "Syriac". Might fit in the Syrian subcat? Otherwise it seems fine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that reverse merge doesn't address the issue of the isolated target. I'd much rather merge to Category:12th-century historians instead of a reverse merge, per egrs and the fact that the category is isolated. Mason (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right. Upmerging Category:12th-century Arab historians to Category:12th-century historians, Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world to Category:12th-century historians, or both to Category:12th-century historians? NLeeuw (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Still no consensus on direction of merging. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose reverse merge per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - The difference between the two is certainly insignificant. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed since nom started the discussion. Merging to parent categorie(s), in this case Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world is the obvious fate of an undesirable category (or delete, but we all agree that delete is not applicable here). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with NLeeuw. A vague, and often contentious, expression like "medieval" or "middle ages" should not be in the title of a category that is essentially chronological (i.e., 12th century). The point is that there is no certainty about the timespan of the medieval period. I would merge both Category:12th-century Arab historians and Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world into Category:12th-century historians, as also suggested above. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * As Category:12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world exists, it is the natural merge target. If there are objections to that category then it should be nominated separately. The argument that there is no certainty about the concept Middle Ages is rather weak as there is rough agreement it spans from about 500 and 1500 and we have medieval categories all over the place. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Former Premier League clubs

 * 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 and populate. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting former premier league clubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently empty but, until just now, it had only Leeds United in it. A total of 51 clubs have played in the Premier League and all except Leeds were in Category:Premier League clubs. Has someone been having a laugh? If the PLC category is meant to hold all 51 clubs, then FPLC is redundant. On the other hand, keeping FPLC will mean seasonal updates in both categories which no one will want to do. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Liz. Should I have left it alone pending the outcome of this discussion? I'll revert the edit if so. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep and populate. The decision should be made for all leagues from, not only for England. Even for all structure . Keep all (first choice) or delete all. Teterev53 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no set purpose for the and its subcats. Are we talking about defunct clubs, or about clubs that have gone upwards from an amateur league to a professional one, or about all promotions/relegations. Take  for example. This includes Aberdeen, whose first team never played in the league, although one of their reserve teams did. Then there are four other clubs currently in the SPFL, three former clubs which became entities of Caley Thistle, and three fully defunct clubs. What exactly is the scope of that category?
 * As for the FPLC category, it is obviously not being maintained and I doubt if it ever will be. I'd have thought that the scope of Category:Premier League clubs is clubs whose teams have played in the PL, even if for only one season back in the 1990s. Similarly, I would expect to find the likes of Cove Rangers in Category:Highland Football League teams, as well as in the SPFL category.
 * We have to remember that categories provide essential navigation for the readers and so their scope and purpose must be certain. The use of "former" in a category title is bound to confuse and mislead. Does it mean "defunct" (like Wimbledon), does it mean "once upon a time" (like Oldham), or does it mean "not at the moment" (like Leeds). PearlyGigs (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-populate as above. The name of the category is a separate discussion. GiantSnowman 20:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But if we re-populate the former clubs category, what happens to the 31 articles in Category:Premier League clubs about clubs that will not be in the PL next season? And will the two categories be updated at the end of each season? PearlyGigs (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - it is nothing to do with as the Premier League is a current league. Perspicax (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a strong argument. It also implies that a broader discussion about is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an excellent point by Perspicax and I admit it didn't occur to me. I agree the proposed discussion is unnecessary within the context of this nomination. The question is whether relegated members of the PL, many of whom will eventually regain promotion, should be categorised as "former" or should be categorised as having played in the league. Remember that when I found, it contained Leeds only, so it was obviously not being maintained. Teterev53 did a partial population after this nomination was raised. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If is only meant to contain sub-cats relating to defunct leagues, as 's comment seems to imply, than it needs some work, as it contains sub-cats relating to the Highland League and the League of Ireland, both of which are still very much in existence ("current") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  19:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw for Perspicax about . It means: not "former league" only. It means: "former league of that clubs". A league where this team played in the past. There are many "current leagues" in it. The ideas for better naming of category are welcomed. Teterev53 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (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.
 * Keep and repopulate per above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Blind sports people
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 to Category:Blind sports. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting blind sports people
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete; I think the two categories are unrelated and all of the sportspeople with vision issues are in the second category. If kept then rename to "Category:Blind sportspeople" since there isn't a gap between "sports" and "people". Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support in principle per nom but presumably it should be upmerged to Category:Blind sports. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a better alt. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per suggestion. Let&#39;srun (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Upmerge. per marco. Mason (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Revolutionary Communist International
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 back, then rename. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting revolutionary communist international
 * Nominator's rationale: The Revolutionary Communist International already had a category under their old name and instead of moving it their current name, a new category was created instead. I believe this was a mistake because the new category doesn't have the old one's revision history. Charles Essie (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge back, then rename Category:International Marxist Tendency to Category:Revolutionary Communist International per nom. This was an out of process move. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh, should I have presented this as a merge discussion instead? Charles Essie (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that we mean the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge back and rename per Marcocapelle, for full completion. As things stand, there is a stray empty category. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Dark music genres
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting dark music genres
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete vague category, undefinable. Similar difficulties were voiced at Articles for deletion/Darkness in music. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:OR. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would have expected this to be an extension of a main article called Dark music, which could provide some substance and, per nomination, actually define the concept. We could do with knowing the origin of the term, which might help. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Australian cricket writers
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Australian cricket writers to Category:Cricket writers and Category:Australian sportswriters
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge; only "nationality category" in Cricket writers. One of them seems to be an organization or newspaper. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not sure about this because there are more Aussies in Category:Cricket writers, so this category is incomplete. Also, there is certainly scope for an English category and perhaps some other nationalities. Should we perhaps consider spreading Category:Cricket writers by nationality? PearlyGigs (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @PearlyGigs, I would discourage nationality categories which are a cross of nationality and specific sport. Its only done if there is a need for diffussion. There isn't here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I see your point as a cricket writer doesn't represent his or her country like a player does. They have to take a global view of the sport, even though many are former international players. Let me think about it. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge as proposed. I can't see a need to split cricket writers by nationality; football, perhaps, but not cricket. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Martial arts writers
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:American martial arts writers to Category:Martial arts writers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category (this is the only nationality category and its not needed as the category itself is small) and Purge any non-writers out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom rationale. Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:New York City local newspapers, in print
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:New York City local newspapers, in print to Category:Daily newspapers published in New York City
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't understand the point of this category. They are newspapers published locally in NYC. I guess WP:OVERLAPCAT applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom, except Long Island Press which isn't published daily. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it right now since, in addition to that, its actually in Nassau County, not NYC. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Seems more than logical to combine these, not sure why they were ever separated to begin with to be honest. Herenow44 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Establishments in German cities by year
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 18%23Establishments in German cities by year

Category:1838 establishments in Schleswig-Holstein
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 and merge as nominated. Further renaming can be the subject of its own discussion (pinging Marcocapelle and PearlyGigs in case either of them wish to do so). House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 02:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:1838 establishments in Schleswig-Holstein to Category:19th-century establishments in Schleswig-Holstein, also merging to Category:1838 establishments in Germany
 * Nominator's rationale: Single-page category. More establishments in Schleswig-Holstein could probably be added, but year categories do not appear necessary. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom but Category:1838 establishments in Germany should be renamed to Category:1838 establishments in the German Confederation because Germany as a unified country did not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, and agree with Category:1838 establishments in the German Confederation. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:History of Nepal on film
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 02:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:History of Nepal on film to Category:Historiography of Nepal
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Establishments in the Mrauk-U Kingdom by century
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 02:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Establishments in the Mrauk-U Kingdom by century to Category:Establishments in Myanmar by century
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and no siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Years of the 18th century in Great Britain
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 05:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting years of the 18th century in great britain
 * Nominator's rationale: delete, the category suggests that it is about the island of Great Britain (as it also contains the early 18th-century years in England and Scotland) but there aren't any sibling categories for the island, so this is merely confusing in relationship to the Kingdom of England (see below). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Effectively a duplication. PearlyGigs (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Question: What would an example of a "sibling category for the island" be? There's the Category:Great Britain tree for the island, which includes the subcategories of Category:Centuries in Great Britain running from the 1st century BC to the 21st AD. One of those is Category:18th century in Great Britain, which doesn't have Category:Years of the 18th century in Great Britain as an immediate subcategory; Category:Kingdom of Great Britain is in between those two. Ham II (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A sibling would be Category:Years of the 17th century in Great Britain. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I see now. So, after it we have Category:Years of the 19th century in the United Kingdom, with no United Kingdom ones before the 19th century, and a Great Britain one for only the 18th century. I think we should only use Kingdom of Great Britain, not Great Britain tout court, for such cases.
 * Having both Category:Years of the 18th century in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Category:Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain (i.e. the category in the nomination below this one) would be pointless when the period covered by the latter is 1707–1800. So I think I'm now leaning Delete. Ham II (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Years in Great Britain
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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:Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain. (non-admin closure) –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 02:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Years in Great Britain to Category:Years of the Kingdom of Great Britain
 * Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, this category contains the period starting in 1707, and per parent Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, and to make a clearer distinction versus Category:Years of the 18th century in Great Britain which also covers the earlier years in England and Scotland if we need that category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Rename as proposed and I think all its contents need similar action. We need to differentiate between the island and the historic kingdom. PearlyGigs (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are also Category:Decades in Great Britain‎, Category:Centuries in Great Britain‎ and Category:Millennia in Great Britain‎. Currently the "Years" and "Decades" categories are for the 18th-century kingdom, and the "Centuries" and "Millennia" ones are for the geographical area. They should probably all be consistently for the geographical area, so I am leaning Oppose. Ham II (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a mess and a joint nomination of all categories involved would lead to a chaotic discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Move all contents to Category:Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain (not "Years of"), and Keep Category:Years in Great Britain as a parent category for Category:Years in England, Category:Years in Scotland and Category:Years in Wales, as with the "Decades", "Centuries" and "Millennia" sibling categories. Ham II (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Category:1707 in Great Britain through to Category:1800 in Great Britain should then be moved here too (from their current parent category of Category:Years of the 18th century in Great Britain), and retitled Category:1707 in the Kingdom of Great Britain, etc., accordingly. Ham II (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I am fine with "in" instead of "of". But whether Category:Years in Great Britain should be kept and repurposed with entirely different content is a whole different matter. I do not object per se, but my impression from the previous discussion is that consensus is against such a GB tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the outcome of that discussion was a move in the wrong direction. The geographical entities of Great Britain and Ireland should be treated as having existed throughout history, in contrast to the political entities of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland (which, crucially, don't exactly correspond to the territory of Great Britain and of Ireland). Ham II (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


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

YearParamUsageCheck
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 the first to Category:Time, date and calendar templates, delete the second, merge the third to Category:WikiProject Years, and rename the fourth as nominated.  ✗  plicit  12:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Propose merging category to Category:Category header templates
 * Propose deleting category
 * Propose deleting category
 * Propose renaming category to Category:Year parameter usage check tracking categories‎
 * Nominator's rationale: I recently WP:BOLDMOVEd YearParamUsageCheck to year parameter usage check per WP:TPN. Part of this is cleanup from that move, but some is cleanup for other reasons. Category:YearParamUsageCheck templates is unhelpful, because it only contains two templates (note that year parameter usage check and year parameter usage check/core are two parts of the same template). Interlinking in the see also is sufficient; the category can be merged to Category:Category header templates. Category:Templates using YearParamUsageCheck can be deleted – it only contains one template – year by category – plus its documentation and sandbox. Category:YearParamUsageCheck tracking categories‎ should be renamed to Category:Year parameter usage check tracking categories‎ to match the template's name. Finally, Category:Wikipedia YearParamUsageCheck can then be deleted, as it will only contain the newly-renamed Category:Year parameter usage check tracking categories‎. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 02:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support merge/delete per nom, though I wonder if they shouldn't be (also) merged to Category:WikiProject Years templates. I have no opinion about the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have put the main template into that category. No need to place its subpages there also. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge the first, but the target Category:Category header templates is not appropriate, so I suggest Category:Time, date and calendar templates instead. Delete the second, which I have listified in the template doc. Merge the third to Category:WikiProject Years. Rename the fourth per nom. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy with that outcome, too! House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 03:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Classical accordionists by nationality
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color:#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 House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Classical accordionists by nationality to Category:Classical accordionists
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category layer is redudant Mason (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. The subcategory could be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


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