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) 06:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Persecution of pagans to Category:Religious persecution

Nominator's rationale: dual upmerge to Category:Religious persecution and Category:Paganism per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one article next to a child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - properly filled, the category would be pretty large. Needs a rename though. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: rename to what? And where would additional content come from, for example? Marcocapelle (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge For Now Doesn't aid navigation today but I look forward to 5 or so articles that would justify recreating the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge For Now I'm not a fan of "persecution" artcile names. I prefer "Anti-paganism polices of Emperor X" or "Anti-Christian policies of Emperor Y". I see little scope for enlargement beyond neo-paganism which is not the same thing at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and add the subcat into the other parent Category:Paganism as well. – Fayenatic London 12:17, 6 April 2016 (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. Some of the "delete" opinions were justified on the basis that the category was not populated, and these no longer carry weight as there are currently 5 articles in the category (Mohamed Abrini, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Khalid El Bakraoui, Osama Krayem, Najim Laachraoui). – Fayenatic London 14:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All of the articles included are currently redirects to the main 2016 Brussels bombings article, and I suspect we will not have a link to an actual article. Per WP:RECENTISM, and also according to the ongoing deletion discussion regarding a related category, there shouldn't be perpetrator categories for every event for the purpose that it's just like the November 2015 Paris attacks. Parsley Man (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Intelligence sources say at least 10 people were involved ... Create the actual articles for each of them ... As members of Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members, it is fine to having articles on them (and hence categorize them). So, the WP:RECENTISM - argument has no value here. Stefanomione (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expand a category. You also created Category:Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks, coveirng a much laregr attack, and even there only two of the included items are articles, the rest are redirects. This categorisation serves no meaningful encyclopaedic purpose. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine the basis for creating individual articles for each person involved. At best, many of them will have redirect links while one or maybe two will actually get articles. However, I doubt any of them will get any articles at this time, given we don't have enough information on any of them that warrants standalone articles. Parsley Man (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete for now as an effectively empty category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Meanwhile the category has grown. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorisation and per WP:BLP since there are as yet no judicial findings of fact to justify inclusion. Oh, and the category would contain, at its most extensive, perhaps a handful of names, of whom at most two or three would meet WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- I have voted to keep Category:2016 Brussels bombings. The alleged perpetrators can conveniently go into that. We may never get a verdict on those who blew themselves up, but their guilt is evident. Living participants will no doubt be tried and sentenced eventually. I expect that we will eventually get enough information to have substantive articles, but we willprobably have to wait until the trials. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the spirit of WP:C1, an unpopulated category. All of these are redirects to articles which are already well categorized. Write 5 articles, and then go ahead and recreate the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note that this is not a unpopulated category anymore. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The category is no longer "technically empty" + Note that we can have Category:Perpetrators of the July 2005 London bombings for 5 years now, that includes 10 perpetrators. According to intelligence sources, 18 people were involved in Brussels. Stefanomione (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I should just point out that the relisting above was done by Stefanomione, the category creator. WP:Relisting is not to be done by editors who have stake in influencing the outcome. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As the nominator, I wish to change my position from deletion to a merge with Category:2016 Brussels bombings, which I have decided to re-vote to keep. Parsley Man (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2016 (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) SSTflyer 04:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Word Ways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a magazine that doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one -- all that's here is the eponym and a "people" subcategory for people who've contributed to it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The "people" subcategory includes a lot of people whoa re no notable for their contributions to this publication, it is arbitrary and trivial to categorise them like this. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JzG: you may be right, but the sub-cat has not been nominated. – Fayenatic London 00:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not needed for navigation, now that I have added a link to the main article on the sub-cat page. – Fayenatic London 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I actually favor keeping the subcategory but this layer isn't aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Multilingual Poets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category on a non-WP:DEFINING characteristic. While the specific languages in which a person wrote poetry would be defining, and indeed we already have categories for that, the mere fact of being "multilingual" is not a defining or category-worthy characteristic in and of itself. This category has been used only for Indian and Nepalese poets -- where being multilingual kind of goes with the territory -- but if properly populated it would also have to include any Canadian writer who wrote in both English and French, any American writer who wrote in both English and Spanish, any British or Irish writer who wrote in both English and one of the Celtic languages, and on and so forth -- but it doesn't constitute a defining point of commonality across all those myriad unrelated contexts. So for those reasons I believe this is a delete -- but even if it were keepable for some reason that's not obvious to me, it's capitalized wrong and would still have to be renamed to Category:Multilingual poets. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That a person wrote in a particular language puts them in a coherent group. That they did so in Swahili and English does not make them like someone who did so in Korean and Japanese.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by edit count (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians with over 100,000 edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians with over 1 million edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These categories were previously deleted, but that discussion was from 2007. Has consensus changed, or should they still be deleted? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous discussion. WP:EDITS is quite sufficient and more likely to be accurate. DexDor ^(talk) 07:08, 28 March 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Opposition to Islam by country or region to Category:Opposition to Islam by country

Nominator's rationale: All of these are countries; also per consistency with parent categories. PanchoS (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Should be by country not region. 18:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQ125 (talk • contribs)

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 Category:World War II sites in the Isle of Man to Category:Internment camps in the Isle of Man (changed "on" to "in" per this discussion), and delete the two other categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories each contain the same four articles, which are also the only articles listed in Category:World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man has never, as far as I am aware, had any Military of its own, and there are no articles about it. I suggest that these four categories should be reduced to one: "Internment camps on the Isle of Man". (There is a suggestion in one of the articles that there were similar camps on the Island in World War 1). As far as I know there was nothing that has been described as an internment camp in any other part of the UK, though there is a well populated category Category:World War II prisoner of war camps in the United Kingdom.Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Internment camps on the Isle of Man, which is the only content. I am not clear in their may have been other British military installations for the defence of then Isle of Man, but that would be Category:Military in the Isle of Man (or on, not of). As a Crown dependency, IoM does not have armed forces of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 1 Category I'll defer to other editors on the best name. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2016 (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. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Late Roman-era Macedonians to Category:Roman-era Macedonians

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT but also as a case of plain overcategorization. We categorize people by century while the century categories are containerized as Ancient and Medieval. It seems pretty redundant to have an extra layer between centuries and Ancient/Medieval. (Note: this reasoning would not apply for topics though, because in contrast to people there are topics that don't fit in a single century but rather span entire Late Antiquity.) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This and the Thessalonian sub-cat need to be split between the Roman era and Late antique era. I am not quite sure where the line on this is drawn. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I ish we could get rid of all these ugly "roman-era" names. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Marcocapelle: is there a need also to merge to the other parent categories Category:Late Roman Macedonia, Category:People from medieval Macedonia and Category:Late-Roman-era people? – Fayenatic London 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To the medieval parent, I'd say no, because medieval follows after late Roman. As for Category:Late Roman Macedonia, I'm not opposed to it but my understanding is we'd better avoid getting biographies in topic categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: to avoid getting biographies in the topic category, shouldn't the nominated category be kept? – Fayenatic London 12:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the time being, I wouldn't worry too much about getting biographies manually categorized in Category:Late Roman Macedonia after this merge. A better long term solution is probably to upmerge Category:Late Roman Macedonia to Category:Late Roman Macedonia (and likewise upmerge Category:Late Roman Greece and Category:Late Roman Anatolia) per WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update, this broader and more recent nomination about "late Roman people" has been closed (as merge) earlier than this older nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2016 (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) SSTflyer 04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Members of the Order of the Silver Elephant

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:SMALLCAT

There is no main article on the Order of the Silver Elephant and there isn't going to be one: the first 4 hits on Google are this Wikipeda category and the 5th is pictures of silver elephant jewelry from Thailand (source). There is only one article in the category and it only mentions this honor in a list of Thailand Boy Scout awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified AusTerrapin as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Scouting. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. I find no evidence that the award even exists apart from what appears here. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:37, 26 March 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Calendar dates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant to categories such as Category:Days of the year. The month articles such as February 2005 now redirect to the year article and the previous history of these pages is now under subpages of Portal:Current events such as Portal:Current events/February 2005 per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2016 (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) 06:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Late-Roman-era eunuchs to Category:Ancient Roman eunuchs

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, both the nominated category and the target category are tiny. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Btw, the ref on Halotus being one seems not exactly an RS. Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, see also three nominations higher on this page. The same (additional) argument of overcategorization mentioned there, may apply here as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- Both articles relate to the period before the sacking of Rome, which might be regarded as a boundary between Roman and Late Antique. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it "might" be so regarded, but it never is - see Late Antiquity. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (As creator) Support. I see that there is no need for a double merge also to other parent Category:Late-Roman-era people, as both member pages are in another sub-cat of that one as 4th/5th-century Romans. @Marcocapelle: I would appreciate it if such nominations would explain why upmerging to other parent categories is not required. – Fayenatic London 00:07, 27 March 2016 (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.