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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:John Robson (politician) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. This is an eponymous category for a person, but two of the three other things here are just stuff that was named after him, which is not a valid basis for a category, and after those were removed there wouldn't be enough stuff left to justify it. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – When I had originally created this category, it was populated by an additional subcategory for places named after John Robson. In a separate discussion, that category was deleted alongside all the subcategories in Category:Places named after Canadian politicians (discussion). Because of this loss of the subcategory, I agree that the current eponymous category is not really all that helpful anymore. RedBlueGreen93 22:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add. Delete per WP:G7. RedBlueGreen93 02:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2025 (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: manual merge and delete. Move items from "Category:Historical events in Foo" to "Category:History of Foo" as appropriate, move any items to "Category:Events in Foo" relating to sports and festivals and whatnot, and delete "Category:Historical events in Foo". -- Beland (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historical events by country to Category:Events by country
• Propose merging Category:Historical events by dependent territory to Category:Events by dependent territory
• Propose merging Category:Historical events by continent to Category:Events by continent
• Propose merging Category:Historical events in Abkhazia to Category:Events in Abkhazia
• Propose merging Category:Historical events in Afghanistan to Category:Events in Afghanistan
• Propose merging Category:Historical events in Albania to Category:Events in Albania
• Propose merging Category:Historical events in Algeria to Category:Events in Algeria
• Propose merging Category:Historical events in Andorra to Category:Events in Andorra
• Propose merging Category:Historical events in Angola to Category:Events in Angola
• Propose merging Category:Historical events in Antigua and Barbuda to Category:Events in Antigua and Barbuda

Nominator's rationale: All events are historical by nature. Non-defining intersection here. Merge up to the Events tree. There is no Category:Historical events. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My point of view is slightly different here but I suppose we can get to some sort of consensus anyway. An "event" can either be anything that happened in a certain period (as in the nominated categories above) or it can mean an organized event, e.g. a cultural event or a sports event. Those are very different things. I would rather argue that we should not categorize anything that happened as an event at all, as being too vague and too different from the other meaning of event, and that we should use events categories only for organized events. And that in turn would imply largely deleting the nominated categories, except that the Disasters, Disablishments and Establishments subcategories should be moved back to History. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Marcocapelle. As I stated in the months-by-event in CfD, the label has no added meaning because every point in spacetime is an event — the only restriction here is the exclusion of current and future events. We may also need to rename the target categories to reflect the proposal to restrict its scope to organized events, such as Category:Diplomatic conferences in Albania (which isn't in the merge target). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Agree with Marcocapelle in that the events tree is unhelpfully vague and needs reorganisation from the top. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marcocapelle's proposal - sounds like WP:TNT to me... - jc37 02:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom, "historical" is probably not that useful a category word in general. CMD (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per above and nom. QalasQalas (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow-up nomination: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_15#Events_by_chronology. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not every event is historical or has the same weight in a nation's history. For example, Category:Entertainment events in Senegal is totally different from Category:Historical events in Senegal. This is just one example, and there are many more one could find. Merging them would make it extremely hard for the public to locate articles germane to historical events. It would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack, which defeats the whole purpose of our categorization system. Tamsier (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tamsier: do you have an opinion on my alternative proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your proposal is sound, and I doesn't see a problem with it. Tamsier (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't Marcocapelle's proposal need amending from "delete" to "manual merge"? As LaundryPizza03| points out, some organised events e.g. Category:Diplomatic conferences in Albania are not in the target, but should be. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, so the alternative is for example:

• Propose manually merging Category:Historical events in Abkhazia to Category:Events in Abkhazia and Category:History of Abkhazia.

Note to closer: I can help with amending the full nomination when desired. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the latter, with a manual merge (no usage of bot) there is no point in expanding the list of nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I not not agree with nominator that all events are historical by nature. A "historical event" is an event that would be described or discussed in a history book. A murder might be historical if, for example, a prominent person were murdered or the murder caused riots. But a routine murder of a spouse or gang member would probably not be historical, even if it warranted a Wikipedia article, unless it affected the course of human history. A history book might briefly mention the annual Brixton darts tournaments, but would be unlikely to discuss the 1987 Brixton darts tournament. There could be a Wikipedia article lovingly describing every detail of the 1987 Brixton event, but unless something very unusual happened it woud not be a historical event. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like you want the adjective "historical" to mean "historically notable" or "historically relevant". On Wikipedia, events are notable, or else they don't have a stand-alone article. And as we are talking about the categorisation of articles, your comments are pretty much moot. - jc37 19:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:May 2025 in Albania to Category:May 2025 in Europe
• Propose deleting Category:2025 in Albania by month

Nominator's rationale: The rest of the month categories for Albania were deleted via consensus of this recent discussion. Same rationale applies. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Merging to Category:2025 in Albania is not necessary, the articles are already in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721: response? it's lio! | talk | work 03:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing to respond to. It's in agreement with my nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Blade (comics) video games. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 03:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Video games based on Blade to Category:Blade (comics) video games

Nominator's rationale: "Blade" is not a singular work for something to be based on. ★Trekker (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename also as a simple case of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The scope becomes much clearer this way. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2025 (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) 18:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Michael Johnson (sprinter) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete; only three articles, one of which is eponymous. No objection to recreation if there are more articles related to Michael Johnson. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, added two new category members that could be expanded into articles. There's enough potential other members as well to justify this category --Habst (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we do not categorize things named after someone, see WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle This case doesn't fit SHAREDNAME "Unrelated subjects" though, because unlike the "Jackson" example where there's no relation except the name, the track and field meet is dedicated to the subject who specialized in track and field, and the physical running track has a bronze statue of Johnson at its side. Statues are almost always categorized under the name tree of the subject. See for example WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Category:Usain Bolt which was kept after a CfD. --Habst (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statues of is ok, fields named after is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The field includes a bronze a statue of the subject, so maybe another potential category member could be added for that. Also the Michael Johnson track isn't a field, it's a running track that has references to the subject (like the statue) beyond just a namesake. --Habst (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Three articles and two redirects is not enough to support a category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Mythological corvids. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 03:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Legendary crows to Category:Mythological crows

Nominator's rationale: rename, almost all articles are about mythology rather than about legends. See also this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest an alternative of "Mythological corvids". The category includes both crows and ravens, and corvid encompasses them both. Another user even made the suggestion on the category's talk page back in 2020. RaidRexx (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That is fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2025 (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: dual merge to Category:Kenyan footballers and Category:Association football players by populated place. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Kenyan footballers by populated place to Category:Kenyan footballers

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just one entry. Also merge to Category:Association football players by populated place Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2025 (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: disperse between Category:People in counterterrorism and Category:Scholars of terrorism. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Counterterrorism theorists to Category:Scholars of terrorism

Nominator's rationale: 1) theorists is a weird category here. What makes someone a theorist? None of the articles I could find used the word "theorist".

2) counterterrorism and terrorism are for academic purposes very tied, a lot of academic focus on terrorism is obviously on how to prevent terrorism. Most people in either category could fit in the other and vice versa, there is no rhyme or reason for who goes where.

This seems to be an excuse to include a few journalists and political advisors who talk about terrorism... somewhere. Maybe scholars is not the right word for these people, but "theorists" certainly is not. Fundamentally I have no clue what is supposed to go in this category versus the parent one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disperse between Category:People in counterterrorism and Category:Scholars of terrorism, as nom says many articles aren't about scholars at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @PARAKANYAA: thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 07:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @HKLionel Good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2025 (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:Scholars of terrorism. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historians of terrorist organizations to Category:Scholars of terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Weird division, also only three people, most of the people in the subcategories aren't historians. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2025 (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:Scholars of terrorism. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historians of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to Category:Scholars of terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Almost no one in this category is actually a historian. Most are journalists or other kinds of academics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, also a kind of WP:PERFCAT, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is just one of many topics that these people have written about. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2025 (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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Historians of al-Qaeda ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Neither of these people are historians. Also only 2 people. Subcat already has consensus to delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fellows of the Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons alumni to Category:Fellow of Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons

Nominator's rationale: More specific name because of Fellowship (FCPS). Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 13:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed I suppose it should be "fellows" in plural. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fellows of the Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons; the article also seems to use a definite article with the university name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target? LaundryPizza03's suggestion includes the word "the" before "Bangladesh" in addition to plural "fellows".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, with "the" it is more natural language. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2025 (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) 19:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television news anchors from insular areas of the United States to Category:American television news anchors

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The people in this category do not work in the American television news market, but in that of one of its insular areas. "American" here refers to the place of work as opposed to source of the news or nationality of the anchor. Also, Category:Television news anchors from insular areas of the United States has the potential of growing in subcategories beyond the current Category:Puerto Rican news anchors (e.g., Category:U.S.V.I. news anchors, Category:American Samoan news anchors, and Category:Guamanian news anchors). At one point Category:Educators from insular areas of the United States had, too, only one subcategory, Category:Puerto Rican educators. So, the presence of a single category as an argument for merging the category is a non-argument. Mercy11 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Citation needed for people from the insular areas somehow not still counting as American Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Also, I seem to have a vague recollection that there a previous CfD discussion on this concerning "insular areas". I'll see if I can find it. - jc37 20:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearcat - I found what I was thinking of: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_1#Category:Film_actresses_from_insular_areas_of_the_United_States. And it's not the only one, I found several others going back the past few years as well (for example: Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:People_by_insular_area_of_the_United_States). I think we may need to take a look at the tree of Category:Insular areas of the United States, and whether it should be just treated like other countries' subcats of Category:Dependent territories by country, and possibly merged to Category:Territories of the United States. - jc37 20:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, Mercy11, and Bearcat: any further thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 07:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• American" here only referring to the place of work as opposed to nationality of the anchor is at odds with all other American people categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but that's not what the record shows. Let me explain.

Any categorization in this subtree has, at least since 2006, always revolved around place of work, not nationality. "Category:American television anchors by populated place", makes this clear when it states in its introduction "The following is a list of television news anchors organized by the city in which they worked". Again, place of work (aka, news market) and not nationality is the basis of the categorization. So, merging the specific and more precise Category:Television news anchors from insular areas of the United States into the more global and generic Category:American television news anchors would go against this years' old practice. BTW, the practice isn't new: this 2006 version of the same Category:American television anchors by populated place, already stated in its introduction, "The following is a list of television news anchors organized by the city in which they worked". That, once more, demonstrates that editors have been using the news market (American, British, Korean, etc.), as opposed to nationality of TV station owner, location of headquarters of the news broadcaster, nationality of anchor, source of the news, etc., as the criteria for the category. Mixing news anchors from the Insular Areas news market with the American news market anchors would break that location/news market practice since they are a different market on multiple levels: cultural and language being two examples. There are tons of American people categories where people from the Insular Areas are listed as a subcategory under American people category ("FOO people from Insular Areas of the United States" under "American FOO people"). Some examples of this by-place-not-by-nationality practice are Category:Politicians by insular area of the United States, Category:People in sports from insular areas of the United States, Category:Educators from insular areas of the United States, Category:Models from insular areas of the United States, and Category:Lawyers from insular areas of the United States. You can do your own search to find the hundreds if not thousands more. In general, people from the insular areas have been handled differently in WP categories from those from the American mainland; some places -like PR and NMI- are handled as their own country (population and square area, for example, aren't included in the mainland US Census or US square area tallies). The CIA WFB, for instance, lists PR and NMI as countries [1] [2]. Regrettably, to add to their own confusion, some editors confuse being an American citizen with being an American. So, there are tons of reasons to keep the people from the Insular areas as a subcategory of the corresponding American parent but not in the same Category as the non-Insular Areas Americans, aka, mainland Americans. For these, and perhaps many other, reasons the proposed merge should not occur. Mercy11 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When it is about populated places, I definitely support categorizing people by place of work rather than by place of birth. But that does not make people from insular areas less American. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2025 (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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Unguided albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Populated only by redirects. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2025 (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 all. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cambodian plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Cambodian surgeons.

Also propose merging:

• Category:Colombian plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Colombian surgeons.
• Category:Croatian plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Croatian surgeons.
• Category:Dominican Republic plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Dominican Republic surgeons.
• Category:Plastic surgeons from Georgia (country) to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Surgeons from Georgia (country).
• Category:Irish plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Irish surgeons
• Category:Israeli plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Israeli surgeons
• Category:Japanese plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Japanese surgeons
• Category:Nigerian plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Nigerian surgeons
• Category:Palestinian plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Palestinian surgeons
• Category:Singaporean plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Singaporean surgeons
• Category:Slovenian plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:Slovenian surgeons
• Category:South African plastic surgeons to Category:Plastic surgeons and Category:South African surgeons

LibStar (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2025 (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.