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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:War Reserve officers of the Metropolitan Police to Category:Metropolitan Police officers

Nominator's rationale: narrow category that's not defining Mason (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 24 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Russian America to Category:Russian colonization of North America

Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping topics. In article space Russian America likewise redirects to Russian colonization of North America. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:37, 25 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Oligarchy task force ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nothing left here expect two blank pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 23 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Corporatism task force ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nothing left here expect two blank pages. Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 23 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fascism task force ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nothing left here except a blank page. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 23 September 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. Thorough discussion; no indication that a WP:RELIST will help form consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ghanaian emigrants to Wales to Category:Ghanaian emigrants to the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: I really don't understand the point of a category like this. Firstly, this category has a single article and is clearly not helpful for navigation. Secondly, what's the point of subnational immigration categories? If you emigrate to Wales you're actually migrating to the United Kingdom and obtaining a UK visa. Merging to the populated parent category makes sense here. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom but this may need a wider nomination per nom's second point. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Query To Marcocapelle's point, do you want to nominate more emigrant categories from Category:Immigrants to Wales, Category:Immigrants to England, Category:Immigrants to Scotland and Category:Immigrants to Northern Ireland? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The point of these categories is to eliminate the categories Welsh people of Ghanaian descent (etc, etc, etc) from the articles, which (a) adds an extra category, (b) is completely inaccurate (people who emigrate are not of Fooian descent, but are Fooian), and (c) will inevitably be added. All of us in the UK actually have British nationality, but if you want to try to eliminate all the many thousands of English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish categories then be my guest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why will they inevitably be added when it is completely inaccurate? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Because people are dumb! I've had to remove thousands of them. But also because if they're not in one of these categories then there is no categorisation of the fact that these people are Welsh and also Ghanaian. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This keep rationale is illogical. Firstly, the sole article in the nominated category is about somebody who overstayed their student visa and was deported. That's not an "emigrant to Wales". I have recently removed a number of similar categories created by yourself incorrectly placed on articles. For example, Category:Fijian emigrants to Wales, solely applied to Owen Sheers even though nothing in the article said he's Fijian. He was born there to British parents temporarily resident in Fiji. That does not make him Fijian. AusLondonder (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, we don't create and add categories to preempt someone else adding incorrect categories. That's just not how categorisation works. I'm also not proposing to delete the "many thousands" of English/Welsh/Scottish categories in general, that's got nothing to do with the substance of this nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have, of course, misunderstood my point entirely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To your point, it is extremely unlikely that Wikipedia editors will put someone who only stayed in Wales temporarily in a Welsh people category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the reason for creating this category was to prevent incorrect addition to descent categories why did you also create Category:Belarusian emigrants to Scotland and then add it as a subcat of Category:Scottish people of Belarusian descent? The same with Category:Republic of the Congo emigrants to England, added to Category:English people of Republic of the Congo descent. AusLondonder (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that was obvious. It helps with navigation, that's all. But the articles shouldn't be directly within the container categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious. You're contradicting the stated reason for creating these categories. Belarusian emigrants to Scotland should not be within the Scottish people of Belarusian descent category tree. That is inaccurate. AusLondonder (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To explain the rationale of creating categories like this in the context of If you emigrate to Wales you're actually migrating to the United Kingdom and obtaining a UK visa. Yes, this is absolutely true. However, the four sub-national categories of the UK are very different from other sub-national categories because other sub-national entitles aren't seen as nations in the same way. We don't have Category:Bavarian people of French descent or Category:People from California of French descent or Category:People from New South Wales of French descent. We do, however, have Category:Scottish people of French descent. And this is entirely incorrect for people who immigrated to Scotland from France. It will, however, without doubt be added if there is not already Category:French emigrants to Scotland, as editors do like to categorise people as being English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish rather than British (or from the United Kingdom). I do take the point about this particular category maybe being unnecessary given the context of the single article, but the principle is sound. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, your argument that an incorrect category will inevitably be added so that justifies creating these categories doesn't make sense. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, what category would you add to categorise people who have emigrated from Ghana (maybe at a very young age) and live in Wales? They're Welsh people of Ghanaian origin, but they're not Welsh people of Ghanaian descent (which imples they were born in Wales to Ghanaian parents). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 2 October 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Drum Corps International members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Marching drum corps, and Drum Corps International groups in particular, is not a defining trait for any of these people Why? I Ask (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Myron Rosander is notable for his corps membership and continuing on to a lengthy career as a corps visual designer. Mitch Markovich was both a marching member as well as corps instructor and composer. Flurrious (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete. How is Drum Corps International members a defining feature for this specific organization? Mason (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, or else rename to Category:Drum corps members. Drum Corps International is a governing organization, people in this category have not been in governing positions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After some thought, Drum corps performers would be a good renaming. Flurrious (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It could also be under Music competition participants, which is a little generic and doesn't capture that people are competing not as individuals but as corps. Flurrious (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See also the discussion for Category:People in drum corps that was deleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point, it is a kind of WP:G4. The discussion is here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 24 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Classical guitar makers to Category:Guitar makers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between the type guitar and occupation. Mason (talk) 04:20, 23 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Flemish battle painters to Category:Flemish war artists

Nominator's rationale: overlapping categories Mason (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 23 September 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 all. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Modern musical instruments and it's subcategoriess as follows:
  • Category:Modern clarinets
  • Category:Modern drums
  • Category:Modern flutes
  • Category:Modern lutes
  • Category:Modern miscellaneous woodwind instruments
  • Category:Modern oboes

All arbitrary and original research; Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless. it's not like musical instruments have censors on them so that whenever they're picked up, a central database records their usage statistics; such a system would have extreme security and privacy concerns, at the very least. Also, many of these categories are small with no potential for growth. Graham87 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, the categories should be limited to instruments invented after about 1800. Certainly delete Category:Modern clarinets as the only article is about an instrument invented around 1700. And if the siblings are kept then certainly merge Category:Modern miscellaneous woodwind instruments to Category:Modern musical instruments per WP:OCMISC. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Saw this earlier today. Should certainly all be deleted as it is vaguely defined and unhelpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:27, 23 September 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: reverse merge (and implement the cleanup highlighted by Marcocapelle). This is a WP:BARTENDER close; there is absolutely no prejudice against a rename nomination. There is agreement that these are duplicative categories and therefore should be merged. There is no clear consensus about merge direction, so I am going with the option that seems to be supported by Ham II (implicitly), Johnbod (explicitly); given that Marcocapelle personally added the stuff for a reverse merge, I take that further weak support for a reverse merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Prehistoric Asia to Category:Prehistory of Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge, it is unclear how the two categories are supposed to be different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the former. Category:Paleontological sites of Asia is not Prehistory in the usual sense, & should be kept out. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter is a fair point, I purged this subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge direction? (I will tag Category:Prehistory of Asia.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a preferred merge direction, maybe User:Nederlandse Leeuw has, one way or the other. I do notice however that not just Asia has this issue, it applies likewise to all other continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Short answer: I'm not sure what to advise here. Seeing my previous proposal for renaming Ancient Fooland to Ancient history of Fooland was a failure, I'm reluctant to to suggest any direction to take into making these catnames more consistent, certainly as long as the main article titles are not in some way WP:TITLECONned first. But that is a discussion that should probably take place elsewhere and not here.

NLeeuw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming we go for a reverse merge, the list of all continents becomes as follows. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Africa to Category:Prehistoric Africa
• Propose renaming Category:Prehistory of Antarctica to Category:Prehistoric Antarctica
• Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Asia to Category:Prehistoric Asia
• Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Europe to Category:Prehistoric Europe
• Propose merging Category:Prehistory of North America to Category:Prehistoric North America
• Propose merging Category:Prehistory of Oceania to Category:Prehistoric Oceania
• Propose merging Category:Prehistory of South America to Category:Prehistoric South America

• Comment: There is currently the article title Prehistoric Asia, and also Prehistoric Africa (but "prehistory of Africa" is used in the article body) and Prehistoric Europe. There are no dedicated articles, only redirects, for Prehistoric Oceania/Prehistory of Oceania and Prehistoric South America/Prehistory of South America. Prehistory of North America is a broken redirect to History of North America § The beginning of North America (which is no longer the title of any section of that article); however, Timeline of North American prehistory does exist. There's nothing for Antarctica. Ham II (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do people support a merge from "Prehistory of Foo" to "Prehistoric Foo"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 23 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Aeginetan mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Aegina
• Propose renaming Category:Aetolian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Aetolia
• Propose renaming Category:Attic mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Attica
• Propose renaming Category:Eleusinian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Elefsina
• Propose renaming Category:Boeotian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Boeotia
• Propose renaming Category:Theban mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Thebes, Greece
• Propose renaming Category:Locrian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Locris
• Propose renaming Category:Corcyraean mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Corfu
• Propose renaming Category:Cretan mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Crete
• Propose renaming Category:Cypriot mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Cyprus
• Propose renaming Category:Epirotic mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Epirus
• Propose renaming Category:Arcadian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Arcadia, Peloponnese
• Propose renaming Category:Troezenian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Troezen
• Propose renaming Category:Corinthian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Corinthia
• Propose renaming Category:Elean mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Elis
• Propose renaming Category:Laconian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Laconia
• Propose renaming Category:Messenian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Messenia
• Propose renaming Category:Rhodian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Rhodes
• Propose renaming Category:Salaminian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Salamis Island
• Propose renaming Category:Thessalian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of Thessaly
• Propose renaming Category:Pierian mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Mythology of ancient Pieria

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for mythology relating to the places rather than mythology necessarily originating in those places, as the current titles imply. There are many Greek myths about places didn't originate in those places and many for which it is impossible to know where the myths originated. Some of the subcategories of Category:Greek mythology by region already follow the proposed naming convention. Mclay1 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "Mythology of X" any better a naming convention? To me that implies that it's mythology from that place just as much as "X-ian mythology" does. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say the proposed names work for both much more than the current names. I'm open to suggestions, however. Mclay1 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The rationale proposes a distinction without a difference. Additionally, renaming these will make them harder to search for, since there are already too many entries for "Mythology" to display in the search window, while most of the articles using demonyms appear right away when someone starts to type them. Consistency is not a strong argument when balanced against convenience. A handful of these names may not be familiar to readers, but readers who are familiar enough with the topics to be searching for them would probably recognize them; and many of the proposed names are equally objectionable.

For instance, "Mythology of Elefsina", rather than "Eleusis", since inexplicably the entire history of ancient Eleusis is covered under the unrecognizable modern name of the town; "Mythology of Corfu", as though "Corfu" were the name of a place one encounters in classical history or mythology; "Mythology of Corinthia", when "Corinthia" is the name of a modern administrative region of Greece that did not exist in antiquity; "Mythology of Arcadia, Peloponnese", as though any other Arcadia would have distinctive mythological topics; "Mythology of Salamis Island", when Salamis was never so called "Salamis Island" in antiquity and will not generally be encountered under that name, and there is no corresponding mythological topic for the other Salamis, in Cyprus. P Aculeius (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not named based on the convenience of searching for the category name; most readers are not finding categories that way, and helping users get to them quickly is not a consideration. First and foremost should be accuracy, and these current names are not accurate. There is a distinction between the mythology relating to a place and the local mythology of the people from that place, but there is of course overlap and the proposed names work for both.

Secondly, using the modern names of the places would be consistent with the rest of the category trees for those places (we use "Greece" and not "Hellas"); however, if it would be better to use the ancient names of the places, we can do that rather than discarding the entire rename for that reason.

To address two specific ones: Corinthia is used for the ancient region (see Regions of ancient Greece#Corinthia), and the disambiguation in the category tree for Category:Arcadia, Peloponnese is necessary to distinguish it from other places called Arcadia. We generally keep subcategory names consistent for clarity even if they wouldn't be ambiguous. Just because we don't currently have mythology categories for other places of the same name, doesn't mean it wouldn't be confusing without disambiguation. Mclay1 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that the searching convenience is not a strong argument for categories, the way it would be with article titles. But the proposed titles are still counter-intuitive, so it is not entirely irrelevant; and if your argument is for consistency, then both categories including the subject and their corresponding articles should begin with the name of the place represented, rather than a generic word such as "mythology". When you're researching mythological subjects, do you look under "Greek Mythology" or "Mythology of Ancient Greece"? "Norse Mythology" or "Mythology of the Norse?"

There may be an argument to make for moving some of these titles, where the demonym is not as familiar as the name of the place, e. g. "Mythology of Cyprus, Epirus, Salamis" may be more logical than "Cypriot, Epirot, Salaminian mythology", but this would be the case for only a few of them, which again demonstrates that consistency, while not entirely irrelevant, is less helpful for determining titles than natural language.

With respect to the modern names, they are simply anachronistic in speaking of subjects from antiquity, and virtually all scholarship written in English over the last three centuries will use Greek- and Roman-era names in preference to modern ones. In some cases such as "Greece", there is a further convention of Anglicization, but it forms on the Roman-era "Graecia" rather than Greek "Hellas". But you will have trouble finding any scholarship referring to the "Elefsinian mysteries", or similar descriptions, and if there is any, it will probably be in recent translations of modern Greek works.

I will retract my criticism of "Corinthia", finding that the term is used for the territory belonging to Corinth in antiquity. However, "Corfu" is as anachronistic as "Elefsina" and even less recognizable; and consistency within category trees is a weak argument for disambiguation when there is no risk of confusion. Nobody says "Arcadia, Peloponnese" or "Salamis Island", and there is no need to do so in these category names just because disambiguation is unavoidable in other contexts.

It's not merely that we don't currently have categories for mythology of other, similarly-named places, but that it is unlikely that such categories would exist in the first place. For instance, the Salamis in Cyprus would presumably be covered under the mythology of Cyprus; and there is no other ancient Arcadia that would have any distinct mythology; the barely-known Cretan town is usually called "Arcades", and other places called "Arcadia" were not established or did not bear the name until after paganism was stamped out. The strongest argument for disambiguation would be "Thebes, Greece", but the corresponding article and category on the mythology of Thebes in Egypt are under "Theban Triad". There is not much risk of confusion, and a hatnote would probably be sufficient to help anyone who arrives at the wrong topic.

To re-iterate, consistency is not a strong argument for renaming categories that are already unambiguous, particularly when the extant names are what readers would most likely expect to find; and in many cases renaming them to be consistent with each other would make them inconsistent with article titles that readers would expect to encounter. It would be better to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus; additional comments would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have an opinion about "fooian" versus "of foo", generally, but I concur with P Aculeius that we should not use modern names when it conflicts with common names of ancient Greece as used by classical scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need more participation :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 23 September 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: reverse merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of the Jews in the Middle East to Category:History of the Jews in West Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, and keep a redirect, Middle East and West Asia are very overlapping concept. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. ME includes all of Turkey and Egypt, but not the South Caucasus. WA excludes parts of Turkey and all of Egypt, but includes the South Caucasus. Ergo ME =/= WA.

I could possibly get behind "Middle East and West Asia", but that's a mouthful. Keeping separate ME and WA lists seems the better alternative. Lewisguile (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ME is a subcat of WA, which is certainly defensible. But much of the content of WA is clearly ME. If we decide what ME actually covers, say it in a note, & rearrange accordingly, won't that fix things? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The three Caucasus countries may or may not belong to either Middle East or West Asia, we can't "decide" that they do belong in West Asia but not in the Middle East. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can and should decide what these terms cover for the purposes of the category, and say that. We should be doing that for all such ambiguous terms, such as Central Europe etc. Otherwise chaos. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per above, not seeing useful improvement in this proposal. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think a more holistic solution is needed here, but more participation is needed to form consensus in this particular discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Support reverse merge Middle East is a more common name than West Asia. Andre🚐 00:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is equivalent to support reverse merge.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrevan: Do you support a reverse merge? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, yes, if the merge was already conducted, I would say that we should treat the Middle East as the Middle East. But yes, I agree with Tom's read of the Ngram and OVERLAPCAT. Sorry yes, I get it now. Andre🚐 03:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reverse merge per the ridiculously one-sided Ngram of "Middle East" vs. "West Asia" vs. "Western Asia", and WP:OVERLAPCAT. Countries get dropped in either direction, so it makes the most sense to choose the direction that's least WP:ASTONISHing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:45, 29 September 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. Note that this decision in no way affects Category:Stub-Class Appalachia articles, which is also being utilized by Template:WikiProject Appalachia; it only affects the half-dozen articles that are transcluding the stub template (which, by the way, is using the wrong category). (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:Appalachia-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Stub template which populates the WikiProject category Category:Stub-Class Appalachia articles. Fewer than 60 members and Category:United States stubs is a very full tree, so unlikely to be helpful as either a stub category or a stub container category. Delete the template and re-sort the contents. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it certainly needs revisiting for proper application to further entries, this template is not in violation or contradictory to any guidelines shown. It has well over 100 applicable pages and US Stubs is rather broad. Appalachia is a fairly large geographic and cultural region, so generally speaking I'd say it's relevant enough to warrant a stub template.

Obviously, I created it so I'm particularly biased; still, I'm opposed. Dionysius Miller^talk 18:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the official guidelines, see WP:NEWSTUB. In particular, new stubs should be proposed first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, where we need to demonstrate that this is not redundant to more specific stub templates.

I am also not saying articles should use {{US-stub}}, I am saying things should use stub templates which feed into Category:United States stubs. For instance, this template is currently transcluded at Kentenia State Forest. However, we have the very specific {{HarlanCountyKY-geo-stub}}. I don't see how a more generic stub type is helpful here, and if it is we need to create an actual stub category (following NEWSTUB). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are currently 109 entries in Category:Stub-Class Appalachia articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 23 September 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. Star Mississippi 02:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:7thC-document-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Orphaned stub template with no associated category. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I made that template for some stub article I came across if my memory serves me right. I don't care about that template now that the page has been deleted, so delete it is.

(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not0nshoree, reasonable. Just as a note for the future, new stub types should be proposed following the procedure at WP:NEWSTUB. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 23 September 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:Dutch Republic. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Subdivisions of the Dutch Republic to Category:Former subdivisions of the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Mason (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but to Category:Dutch Republic, the article is about occupied territories rather than a subdivision. The Seven Provinces might offer seven entries for this category but I presume they do not have an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison: thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems reasonable to me Mason (talk) 01:16, 1 October 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Military of Curaçao to Category:Government of Curaçao

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Mason (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 23 September 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/delete as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Economy of Loosduinen
• Propose merging Category:Companies formerly based in Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen
• Propose merging Category:Transport in Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen
• Propose merging Category:Mayors of Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen
• Propose merging Category:Paintings of Loosduinen to Category:Loosduinen

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated categories, upmerge for now to the former village, Loosduinen. There's only one page per category, and the vast majority lack relevant parent categories. Mason (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 23 September 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Field guns by company to Category:Field guns

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a redundant category layer with only on parent category. Mason (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 23 September 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.