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 as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia reviewers to Category:Wikipedia pending changes reviewers

Nominator's rationale: Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Change the name of reviewers to "Pending changes reviewer". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment. I think a subcategory Category:Wikipedians who hardly ever act as Pending changes reviewers could be created....William 00:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could think of a couple of subcategories myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is the consensus term now. Comment: this category is assigned by Template:Reviewer topicon and Template:User wikipedia/Reviewer, which would need to be updated. – Wdchk (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those two templates before making this nomination, and they both have already been corrected (unless you mean moving them both to new names; I'm referring to what actually displays in each case). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the place in the template code that adds the user to a category; the reference to Wikipedia reviewers will need to be changed to Wikipedia pending changes reviewers after the category is moved. Just wanted to note it here as a memory jogger for one of us to remember to do it. – Wdchk (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support As I understand it, the name of userright on the backend was changed to pending changes reviewer, so there should be little debate with changing the name elsewhere. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, important for consistency. BethNaught (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedian pending change reviewers to better match the rest of the user category system - "Wikipedian x" is much more standard than "Wikipedia x". VegaDark (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty much neutral as to "Wikipedia" versus "Wikipedian" (although perhaps "reviewers" already conveys the personal characteristic), but I think it needs to be "changes" rather than "change" because that's the term in use for PC. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be okay with that. I don't think "reviewers" does convey that alone, there could be confusion it was a mainspace category without "Wikipedian". VegaDark (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since the name of the right has changed, the category should reflect it. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:18, 22 October 2014 (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: speedily deleted. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Delicious and greasy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Subjective, WP:POV category ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Close -- apparently already deleted! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2014 (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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Footballers from Ankara to Category:Sportspeople from Ankara

Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFDs[1] and this one[2], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. Also upmerge entries into Category Turkish footballers as necessary. ...William 20:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that this is a pilot test case. Because no other cats Footballers from Mizoram, Delhi, Jharkhand, Assam, Leeds, Sikkim, Goa, Maharashtra, Qingdao, Goa, Cornwall, Enugu, Guangxi, Henan, Tianjin, Barcelona, Feltham, Southall, Oldham, Hunan, Sichuan, Dalian, Shandong, Jilin, Hertfordshire, Bristol, Shaanxi, Xinjiang, Skåne, Madrid, Istanbul, Bavaria, Izmir, Sheffield, Majorca, Punjab, Manipur, Moscow, Kerala, Karnataka, Beijing, Meghalaya, Liaoning, Hitchin, Anhui, Wiltshire, Newham, Shenyang, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guizhou, Lambeth, Ipswich, Guangdong, Jiangxi, Chongqing, Watford, Hebei, Yunnan, Jiangxi, Heilongjiang, Shanxi, Suffolk, Transnistria, Michoacán, Shanghai and a lot of more were not tagged at all for merging. I tried to give an exemple list with the hope that you were not aware of the extent, and it may help you review your intension. --CeeGee 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Thbe proposed merger would make the category too large to be useful. This stream on nominations is the result of an ill-considered closure of a category, related to ice-hockey. I think in that case there were few enough for a state-wide to be worthwhile. However, the presetn trend for merging people who play one sport to enormous sportspeople categories loses useful data on what theri sport is. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ankara is a populous and major capital that warrants such subdivision. Population-wise, it is bigger than most US states. No comment made on the smaller areas listed above by CeeGee. SFB 23:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: FYI - I've gathered quite a bit of more-questionable content at Category:Footballers by city or town. SFB 23:31, 7 September 2014 (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:Prejudices. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Prejudicial phobia to Category:Prejudice-phobia

Nominator's rationale: This is really a request for help regarding renaming options for the Category. I created the category a short time ago but have had problems with the name. The problem is that, while the category contains items that are described as phobias, the reality sometimes regards more blatant and unmanaged forms of prejudice.

Items in the category are: Biphobia; Homophobia; Islamophobia; Transphobia and Xenophobia
Xenophobia is also a category containing a wide range of items including: Anglophobia, Francophobia, Hispanophobia, Lusophobia, Russophobia and Sinophobia.
In addition to: Category:Prejudice-phobia;
I have also considered:
Category:Prejudicial responses described as phobias;
Category:Prejudice as phobia;
Category:Phobias (prejudicial)
anything else.

That last option was an earlier idea on the basis that, while "Prejudicial phobia" first introduces prejudice and follows this up with mention of the more excusable concept of phobia, Phobias (prejudicial) starts with Phobia and then ups the ante with mention of prejudice. At least that was the idea.
I'm now hoping for a bit of wisdom.

(This all also relates to a navigation I designed as at Category:Prejudice_and_discrimination and daughter pages). Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Prejudices. Editor2020, Talk 02:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge per Editor2020 While the terms are labelled phobias, they aren't sufficiently distinct in that fashion from other prejudices, (for example anti-Semitism, ableism, anti-intellectualism). The category does not serve a function beyond "prejudices ending 'phobia'". May be worth evaluating how articles are placed between phobia and prejudice trees though. SFB 18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Prejudices per WP:SHAREDNAME. Homophobia and Xenophobia share similar names but don't seem to especially go together better than other prejudices. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Prejudices. This is categorization based on shared name at its worst, especially since some of these names are highly contested.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2014 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People from Réunion to Category:Réunionnais people

Nominator's rationale: The article List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations lists "Réunionnais" as both the adjectival and demonymic forms for the nation so this category should follow the usual national form of "fooian people" rather than the place name like "people from x". SFB 19:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- While "Réunionnais" is technically the correct demonymic adjective, it is not sufficiently in common use in English to be preferable to what we have at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Just as a note, this is also a test case for the idea of whether "Réunionnais people" is acceptable, as we already have varied usage in the child categories. SFB 23:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per PKI, demonymic naming causes a lot of trouble. It would be better to stop using it for category names -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated. I don't see any good reason not the follow the general convention here—many of the subcategories already do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The target is not common enough in English to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Peterkingiron's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Azerbaijani football clubs in European football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too few articles for a category and unlikely to get bigger any time soon. Not required JMHamo (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 07:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not required. Questionable notability of the subjects currently included. Fenix down (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a standard naming convention in parent Category:Football clubs in European football. There are 30 similar subcategories for other countries. European football = UEFA competitions. 92.113.205.204 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The category is not nearly populated enough to justify inclusion, that is why we also don't have a Category:Andorran football clubs in European football and a bunch of other countries. GiantSnowman 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Category:Maltese football clubs in European football and Category:Albanian football clubs in European football exist. Potential for creating another articles. 178.93.237.102 (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Those two categories were not nominated, although they may be in the future... JMHamo (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2014 (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 both into a new Category:Satellite buses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Communications satellite models to Category:Satellite bus

Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in said category describe different models of satellite buses. It's hard to guess what author of this category had in mind, but since it was moved to a subcategory of satellite bus - it became completely redundant. Satellites buses are covered by Category:Satellite bus - this category already contains buses designed for communication sats, and the distinction between comm-sat buses and non-comm sat buses doesn't really exist. Also note that the name is very misleading - in a most common usage "satellite model" is a toy that you buy in a store with space gadgets; satellite bus is what the articles in this category describe. Both categories are overlapping so much that there is no justification for the existence of Communications satellite models. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging, but the target category should probably be renamed to pluralise the title. --W. D. Graham 14:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree SkywalkerPL (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Satellite buses. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (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 keep them separate would mostly just maintain a distinction by arbitrary choice of name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Conservation areas to Category:Protected areas

Nominator's rationale: The two terms have approximately the same definition, and the main articles have been merged. -- Beland (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to match the presnt main article. I will comment that in UK a Conservation Area is one in which there are additional planning restrictions on alterations to buildings to conserve the built environment of the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (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 (already categorized in proposed target). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople in Tallinn to Category:Sport in Tallinn

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container subcategory. Consensus is Team athlete categories get placed in 'Sport from Foo' of whatever place their team originates from. ...William 13:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All subcategories already in child categories of the Category:Football clubs in Tallinn‎ which already included in Category:Sport in Tallinn. 92.113.205.204 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Figure skaters from Kiev to Category:Sportspeople from Kiev

Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFDs[3] and this one[4], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - at the city level, past CfD has been very consistent that "sportspeople" is the lowest level of diffusion for these categories - not by individual sport. The lowest level at the individual sport level has been province. Once you go lower, it's not that meaningful or defining. Rikster2 (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. What about another subcategories from parent Category:Figure skaters by city or town? 92.113.205.204 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2014 (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; I considered some of the previous similar discussions in closing this. There seems to be a basic consensus for this, but at this stage, I would suggest that the consensus is marginal—it wouldn't take much to flip the consensus to no consensus, so I think further discussion on categories of this type will be helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople from Moscow by sport to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFDs[5] and this one[6], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is.

Also nominating for merging all its subcategories

Category:Cyclists from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Figure skaters from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Footballers from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Golfers from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Ice hockey people from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Racing drivers from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Triathletes from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Volleyball players from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Category:Water polo players from Moscow to Category:Sportspeople from Moscow

Also upmerge all people in the categories into the category Russian athletes as necessary. ...William 12:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess the same would apply to the child categories of Category:Sportspeople from Liaoning and Category:Sportspeople from Shanghai too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- the categories that I checked are quite well enough populated to keep. Where we have a minute category, would should do a full upmerge; where it is well populated we should keep it. The precedents cited are bad ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "by sport" merge There is no reason why the subcategories cannot sit directly on Category:Sportspeople from Moscow. SFB 23:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose child cats merge Moscow is a major city that warrants this subdivision. It's population of 11.5 million has a strong sporting history, shown by the fact that many of these categories are well filled out yet nearly 500 are still present in the main cat. SFB 23:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - at the city level, past CfD has been very consistent that "sportspeople" is the lowest level of diffusion for these categories - not by individual sport. The lowest level at the individual sport level has been province. Once yo go lower, it's not that meaningful or defining. Rikster2 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2014 (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: Upmerge (NAC). Note: In most/all cases the articles were already in a subcategory of Category:People from Hokkaido (e.g. Category:Sumo people from Hokkaido). DexDor (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People by subprefecture in Hokkaido to Category:People from Hokkaido
• Propose merging Category:People from Iburi Subprefecture to Category:People from Hokkaido
• Propose merging Category:People from Ishikari Subprefecture to Category:People from Hokkaido
• Propose merging Category:People from Kamikawa Subprefecture to Category:People from Hokkaido
• Propose merging Category:People from Oshima Subprefecture, Hokkaido to Category:People from Hokkaido

Nominator's rationale: Severely underused categories. Though Hokkaido can be split into subprefectures, this does not serve much of a purpose, as there aren't too many biographical articles on people from Hokkaido in the first place. The subprefectures are also more bureaucratic divisions instead of indicating any strongly cultural divisions (e.g. I'm not sure if there are many cultural differences between Kushiro and Nemuro). Much of the subprefecture categories are already served by city categories (such as most of Oshima being served by the Category:People from Hakodate, Hokkaido category). It makes more sense to unify these, and split people by city if enough pages warrant a city division.

Other subprefectures exist in Japan, such as in Kagoshima, Nagasaki, Okinawa, etc, but none of these categories split people by origin at this level. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Keep it clean. SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge Prefectures are not prominent parts of people's identities. Better subdivided by major cities/regions instead. SFB 23:43, 7 September 2014 (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; renaming the target category would require a nomination of it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Marches to Category:Marching

Nominator's rationale: Marches is ambiguous. Marches redirects to March (territory). As Category:Marching already exists and maybe has a slightly different scope, alternatively I suggest renaming to Category:Individual marches. Tim! (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but move Category:Marching to Category:Marching styles. SFB 23:44, 7 September 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category, 3 articles, without coherence. It's about a tribe, a people and a district. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Pakistan did not exist until 1947. Artciles related to the history of present country before partition should be in History of India categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, it's talking about the pre-Islamic heritage of the places that are currently within Pakistan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm open to having categories that refer to a current geographical entity in the context of historical events that happened in that region of the earth before the geographical entity was created. Books, articles, and other sources do this all the time and there's nothing really unusual about it. Doing so helps readers situate the historical events into the world using a template that they already understand. I don't know much about this topic and whether it's adequately populated, but from a brief perusal I don't really see a strong argument for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 21 November 2014 (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 for now, as there are no sibling categories for other modern countries in Asia within the parent Category:Early Modern history by country, so it does not seem helpful for navigation. However, the member category is in that one already, and I will move it up into the other parent Category:History of Pakistan by period. – Fayenatic London 17:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Post-medieval history of Pakistan to Category:Early Modern Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: established naming convention. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative proposal: delete because the category only contains one childcategory Category:Mughal Empire which is already a childcategory of Category:Early Modern history by country. In other words, the rationale of the alternative proposal is to avoid duplication in Early Modern history tree, to treat Mughal Empire as the one relevant (former) country and to ignore Pakistan as an anachronistic country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The Mughal Empire ended in 1857, 90 years before Pakistan existed. It should be (and no doubt is) in the appropriate category for India. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an interesting comment, as it makes me wonder whether Mughal Empire should be in the India category either. At least in Category:Early Modern history by country the Mughal Empire has been treated as a former country that is neither equivalent to Pakistan nor India. That seems like a pretty fair way of categorization because one can argue that India started to exist in 1947 as well as Pakistan did. The Mughal Empire can't really be viewed as a predecessor of India, as it gradually imploded in the course of the 18th and 19th century. With this way of reasoning, everything referring to the era before the independence movement for India and Pakistan should be categorized directly in the History of South Asia tree rather than in the History of India tree. Is there perhaps a categorization guideline on this topic already? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I'm open to having categories that refer to a current geographical entity in the context of historical events that happened in that region of the earth before the geographical entity was created. Books, articles, and other sources do this all the time and there's nothing really unusual about it. Doing so helps readers situate the historical events into the world using a template that they already understand. That said, this category should be renamed/merged as proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 21 November 2014 (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: speedy merge C2B. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ancient Near East stub articles to Category:Ancient Near East stubs

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. DexDor (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously merge as the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (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.