Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 31

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:13th-century Kipchacks to Category:13th-century Kipchaks
• Propose renaming Category:12th-century Kipchacks to Category:12th-century Kipchaks
• Propose renaming Category:11th-century Kipchacks to Category:11th-century Kipchaks

Nominator's rationale: Per Kipchack redirecting to Kipchaks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2D, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wabash Athletic Association football seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers to Category:14th-century writers in Latin

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between version of latin language Mason (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Hi there, this is a stylistic rather than periodic distinction. Most writers in C14th wrote in what is called "Medieval Latin", but a handful of pioneers wrote in a classicising style that we now call Neo-Latin. The most famous of these is Petrarch. by c. 1500, the distinction reduces and disappears, and categories of Latin writers are all grouped under Category:Neo-Latin writers. However, in the transition centuries, this is not possible. Jim Killock (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context. I still don't know if that intersection is defining, like are these people typically described as "14th-century Neo-Latin writers"? Because for this tranistion period, it would make more sense to me to just add them directly to the parent category instead. Mason (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are typically described as either "Renaissance Latin" or "Neo-Latin" writers, but never as "medieval Latin" writers (excepting early works perhaps). Their defining feature is that they were pioneers who used the revived, standardised, classical standard we now call either Renaissance or Neo-Latin. I don't know what the right approach is, exactly, because they are after all also "14th century Latin writers", but the parent category claims that all 14th century Latin writers are also writers of Medieval Latin, which is plainly incorrect. What should happen is that the category is split out, and also for the Category:15th-century writers in Latin, which even more ridiculously claims that all 15th century Latin writers are both Renaissance Latin and Medieval Latin writers. I had a strategy for this which is to list all Neo-Latin writers on a list page, which is currently in draft, and split them out. Jim Killock (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so from what you have written here, your problem is more with the parent categories, rather than the 14th-century category. I'd encourage you to look over how categories and their nesting structure work, as it sounds like a better solution would be to remove some of the parent categories rather than create a duplicate category. Mason (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I didn't do any of this, except create the 14th-century Neo-Latin writers category. I don't really see how it can be addressed except the way I've suggested, because the people designing the category have assumed that rigid differentiations can be applied through the whole Latin period. So Category:Medieval Latin-language writers includes Category:6th-century writers in Latin up to Category:15th-century writers in Latin; which is probably in opposition to what many scholars of Late Latin would say. The boundaries imposed are by century and therefore arbtitrary and need serious fixing, but my own ambition is limited to addressing the issues with Neo-Latin writers, which I hope you'll appreciate is where I've got some knowledge I can apply. Jim Killock (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you created any of the "by century" categories; what I was suggesting is that there is an alternative solution that would not involve duplication of the the 14th-century. You've brought up the concerns you have with the parent categories, such as medieval latin-language writers including the 6th century, as well as 15th-century being included in medieval. How are either of those relevant to the current category under discussion? Those boundary categories could easily be removed if you were to add a clear description of the range, but this category doesn't solve that problem. Mason (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that whoever designed the Latin category system knew that "style" in Latin matters more than "century" and wanted a way to short cut the classification work of thousands of writers. How do I find all the medieval Latin writers? I look through a set of century categories at Category:Medieval Latin-language writers.

Thus, each century is assigned a "style", which in several cases in problematic. This ought to be fixed, but is some amount of work.

For the 14th century, it is broadly correct, with a small number of exceptions, which I separated out into this category.

For the 15th century, the solution is to seperate a larger number of medieval style writers, and label others as Neo-Latinists of that century. In other words, the solution to the innaccurate classification is for someone to go through the boundary centuries and separate out the classifications.

If you merge the two categories Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers with Category:14th-century writers in Latin, then you end up with wrong information.

If, to avoid this, you remove Category:14th-century writers in Latin from Category:Medieval Latin-language writers to avoid this incorrect information, then the overall classification is broken, and a century of Medieval latinists are no longer classified as such.

The alternative is to delete the classification system matching styles to century, but this leads to much greater data loss and more pain, I would suggest. Jim Killock (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I don't see this being a useful distinction at the moment. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If merge, then perhaps with Category:Neo-Latin writers and with Category:14th-century writers in Latin. The style of their Latin is just as important than the period in which they wrote it. Jim Killock (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, part of a series by century. Either merge all or merge none. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: This is the only "Neo-Latin writers" entry. The rest of the century entries in Category:Neo-Latin writers are "writers in Latin" categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are perhaps 700 Neo-Latin writers identified as such on Wikipedia, who are are listed in sub categories of Category:Neo-Latin writers by century, e.g. Category:16th-century writers in Latin‎, with 244 entries. This is the problem.

  A solution could be to place all of these into Category:Neo-Latin writers, as well as their century, if that is preferred, but that would be inconsisent with the practice in other Latin periods. Jim Killock (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am confused about my own response above but I note that there is also broader confusion. Can we just assume that all later Latin writers wrote in Neo Latin? If we can, the later century subcategories can be renamed to Neo-Latin. If we can't we can still create Neo-Latin subcategories per century. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think from 1500, across the century as a whole, once printing starts, you can assume that 80-90% were writing in Neo-Latin, and from 1600, 100%. I understand tho, that people would expect a century by century classification of Latin authors, so the sensible thing would be to copy members of Category:17th-century writers in Latin‎ and onwards into Category:Neo-Latin writers.

    • (I take your point, it could be that Category:17th-century writers in Latin‎ could move to [[Category:17th-century Neo-Latin writers, etc, but I would double check a bit more widely)
    • For Category:15th-century writers in Latin‎ I could go through and separate out those that are Neo-Latin stylists Category:Neo-Latin writers, so that he remainder should be copied to Category:Medieval Latin-language writers.
    • For Category:16th-century writers in Latin‎, I could go through and find out those that are medieval stylists into a pre-group, that should be copied to Category:Medieval Latin-language writers. The rest could then be copied to Category:Neo-Latin writers.

    I don't know how sophisticated the category moving tools are tho, they would need to be able to copy to multiple categories, and / or exclude some of the entries that belonged to a specific category.

    I also can't help with the earlier classifications, tho, eg the prior centuries and prior latin styles (Old, Classical, Late, rest of Medieval) 400 BC to 1300 AD, which would then be treated differently; and even for just Neo-Latin, this is also a big job, which may take some time to prepare. It does feel like it needs more consultation than just the few of us considering the "bridging" category I made initially. Jim Killock (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jim Killock. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killock has suggested an alternative structure. Are you opposing that alternative as well? Mason (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Fictional toymakers and toy inventors to Category:Fictional artisans and Category:Fictional inventors

Nominator's rationale: A rather narrow and unnecessary category, it can easily be dual merged into these two categories depending on the character. (Though, Geppetto is already in the subcategory of carpenters). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be enough characters here to warrant a split. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. @Zxcvbnm, I assume you mean merge here right? Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's no option for selecting 2 merge targets so... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm, yes the lack of dual merge option is quite frustrating! Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No explanation of why this is "narrow", but artisan supposedly has a wider scope. Dimadick (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toymakers is very narrow. What if they make other objects? Mason (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American women health professionals of Indian descent to Category:American health professionals of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender, occupation, and ethnic origin Mason (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and previous precedent. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American film people by ethnic or national origin to Category:American film people

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is unhelpful for navigation with only one category in it Mason (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename/merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Film actors of Pakistani descent to Category:Actors of Pakistani descent
• Propose renaming Category:British film actors of Pakistani descent to Category:British actors of Pakistani descent
• Propose renaming Category:American film actors of Pakistani descent to Category:American actors of Pakistani descent
• Propose renaming Category:American film actors of Vietnamese descent to Category:American actors of Vietnamese descent
• Propose merging Category:American film actors of Taiwanese descent to Category:American actors of Taiwanese descent
• Propose merging Category:American film actors of Japanese descent to Category:American actors of Japanese descent
• Propose merging Category:American film actors of Filipino descent to Category:American actors of Filipino descent
• Propose merging Category:American film actors of Korean descent to Category:American actors of Korean descent
• Propose merging Category:American film actors of Chinese descent to Category:American actors of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:American film actors of Asian descent to Category:American actors of Asian descent
• Propose deleting Category:American film actors by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethniticity, occupation, and medium Mason (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge per nom, and re-parent the first four categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge as proposed but also merge to Category:American film actors.--User:Namiba 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the latter merge would be redundant because the articles are already in Category:American male film actors and Category:American film actresses. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge per nom. @Smasongarrison: I removed the duplicate Taiwanese entry. Place Clichy (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks! Mason (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Geochronologically significant locations to Category:Geochronology

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Vaguely defined Mason (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete, it is questionable whether the articles belong in the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fuels infrastructure. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fuels infrastructure phase-out to Category:Fuels infrastructure

Nominator's rationale: This category has no actual infrastructure phase-out content in it. Mason (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Natural gas phase-out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No actual content in here about a phase out Mason (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Oil phase-out to Category:Fossil fuel phase-out
• Propose merging Category:Fossil fuel vehicle phase-out to Category:Fossil fuel phase-out

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to really justify a category. Mason (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Expulsions of Jews to Category:Expulsions and exoduses of Jews

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main parent article Longhornsg (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, expulsions and exoduses are clearly different things. Rather split the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Drinking culture by country. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Wine culture by country to Category:Wine culture and Category:Drinking culture by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but just merge to Category:Drinking culture by country because the subcategory is already included in Category:Wine-related events. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ladies Professional Shogi-players' Association of Japan. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:LPSA to Category:Ladies Professional Shogi-players' Association of Japan

Nominator's rationale: I think this falls under C2D, but, my nom is more motivated by the fact that LPSA is too generic Ladies Professional Shogi-players' Association of Japan Mason (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me. I just though it was a long name, but LPSA is opaque so it's probably better to spell it out. – ishwar  (speak) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Professional shogi players to Category:Shogi players
• Propose renaming Category:Women's professional shogi players to Category:Female shogi players

Nominator's rationale: No other board game player category makes this distinction Category:Board game players. Mason (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Professional shogi players are a distinct group of shogi players in that they are members of the 日本将棋連盟 (Nihon Shōgi Renmei). Only Japanese people are professional players. There are other non-Japanese shogi players who have wikipedia pages, but they aren't professional. It's not like chess where anyone who is a good player can participate in a shogi tournament. Amateur shogi players generally can't participate in professional tournaments. It's rather restrictive. The reason for making the distinction is because the distinction is made in the shogi world (which is a part of Japanese culture). Perhaps no other board has this rigid hierarchical structure of players. It's a similar situation with female shogi players, who are technically not professional players (since none has passed the stringent prerequisites), where they have label of female professional shogi player (女流棋士 joryū kishi) that is distinct from an amateur player. Again, although the chess world has women's chess tournaments, but there's not a distinct between a professional and an amateur. This is unlike Japanese culture where there is a distinction. The categorization represents the distinction. – ishwar  (speak) 03:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as there are professional players, it will be very difficult for any amateur to achieve notability so the distinction here on Wikipedia is moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge per nom. Let'srun (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, @Let'srun, @Omnis Scientia, and rename? Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Renane as well. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Middle Eastern clothing. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Syrian clothing to Category:Syrian culture and Category:Middle Eastern clothing

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here. Mason (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:16th-century anthropologists to Category:16th-century scholars

Nominator's rationale: Neither of these people are anthropologists. Anthropology doesn't really become a field until the 19th century Mason (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in Category:16th-century Mesoamericanists. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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