• Propose renaming Category:Organizations designated as cults by China to Category:Organizations designated as cults by the Chinese government

Nominator's rationale: The Chinese government should not be conflated with China because

• China's government is not elected by the Chinese people. [1] It is totalitarian [2]
• There is increasing attribution to such a distinction. Consider the bipartisan United States House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party: It does not say competation with China, but rather the ruling Party of China CCP.
• Also consider the U.S. government's directive in verbiage regarding this issue, i.e. to distinguish between the CCP and Chinese people so as to not imply negative connotation to the Chinese people. [3]

It is therefore more accurate rename this category to reflect that it was the Chinese government that made those designations. Thomas Meng (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former forts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is an underpopulated category that, if populated (after a lot of work), would be huge and unwieldy, even if the (in fact ambiguous) qualifier "completely demolished" is kept. I suggest populating "Military installations closed in [year or appropriate time frame]" as sufficient, or an alternative, as the case may be. btw I think the subcategory "Former star forts" is distinctive enough for keeping, though each should be cross-categorized in "Military installations closed in [year or appropriate time frame]". Doprendek (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, forts are hardly ever still in use as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sieges involving the Maratha Empire to Category:Sieges involving the Maratha Confederacy

Nominator's rationale: Per main article Maratha Confederacy and parent category Category:Battles involving the Maratha Confederacy Constantine ✍ 20:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:January 1956 iin Asia to Category:January 1956 in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Typo in name 109.38.153.179 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:700s in Japan (5) to Category:8th century in Japan and Category:700s
• Propose merging Category:710s in Japan (4) to Category:8th century in Japan and Category:710s
• Propose merging Category:720s in Japan (4) to Category:8th century in Japan and Category:720s
• Propose merging Category:730s in Japan (2) to Category:8th century in Japan and Category:730s
• Propose merging Category:740s in Japan (4) to Category:8th century in Japan and Category:740s

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation through at least the end of the 10th century. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. Manually merge to the decade parent as many of the articles may already be in subcategories of that category. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Century categories are not particularly helpful when trying to locate specific eras or events. Dimadick (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, these categories should be kept and where possible further populated, not upmerged to very broad categories. Fram (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus was to merge to century level up to year 1000 per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 3#Up to year 1000 in China, England, France and Japan. These are actually recreations of deleted categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and WP:G4. After merging it will become much easier between the articles of the century. Within a decade there is very little to navigate to. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Heritage railways on the Isle of Wight to Category:Rail transport on the Isle of Wight

Nominator's rationale: Per the Ships of the Isle of Wright category. This should be merged as well; it only has a single page. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge also to Category:Heritage railways in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:6th-century establishments in Arabia to Category:6th-century establishments in Asia

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. Not connected to any "Arabia" tree. WP:OCLOCATION. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Two-year college sports in the United States to Category:Junior college sports in the United States

Nominator's rationale: In the context of intercollegiate sports, "junior college" (or its acronym, "JUCO") is far more common than "two-year college". Jweiss11 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm looking at Category:Two-year colleges in the United States. And it says that the inclusion criteria is: " all two-year postsecondary institutions in the United States (both active and defunct), including community colleges, junior colleges, military junior colleges and vocational and technical colleges". And that one of the subcats of the nominated cat is: Category:California Community College Athletic Association- jc37 15:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per the above. And I think the "junior college" subcats probably should be renamed to "Two-year college" as well. - jc37 15:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37:, Can an you show me uses of "Two-year college sports" in the United States? The phrases "junior college basketball" (198,000 hits on Newspapers.com) and "junior college football" (127,000 hits) are common, while the phrases "two-year college basketball" (2,700) and "two-year college football" (4,600) are relatively obscure. Yes the California Community College Athletic Association is a association for junior college or JUCO sports, not "two-year college sports". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is WP:OVERLAPCAT. We obviously do not need separate category trees for community colleges and junior colleges and vocational schools, etc. So it's better to have a Neutral name which encompasses both/all. And the parent cat is called: Category:Two-year colleges in the United States. If there is a better name, I'm all ears. - jc37 18:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I take your failure to provide any examples as an admission that "two-year college sports" and sport-specific variants of such are not commonly used. What you're missing here with your pivot is that common usage is different when talking about sports versus the academic institutions themselves. Should I have bolded the intro to my nomination, which reads "In the context of intercollegiate sports...".? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm saying that the terms are pretty much used interchangeably. Looking at community college and junior college, I'm not seeing much of a difference in usage. Why should one be picked over the other? - jc37 19:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're still missing the point, somehow. Are you looking at sports-specific content? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Junior college is the common name for this stuff. Please see the National Junior College Athletic Association, which includes military colleges. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So far, statements about WP:COMMONNAME have no evidence. I look at the articles, and at searches, and the names are used interchangeably, presumably based upon the time period that certain schools were created. With one article even suggesting that "junior college" was more common to be used prior to the 1970s. And we also see that the parent of all of these is: Category:Two-year colleges in the United States - presumably for the reasons I have mentioned. Just because a certain organisation has had a certain name, that doesn't make the category name Neutral. So find verifiable reliable sources that clearly show that junior college is the more common name than community college now, currently - not just in sports, but overall. If you can't establish that, then there shouldn't be a rename. - jc37 00:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  jc37, it's amazing that you continue to miss the point that common usage is different at the level of academic institutions versus when specifically discussing the intercollegiate athletics of those institutions. I provided evidence above from Newspapers.com of 25-to-75x factor for common usage of "junior college" versus "two-year college" when discussing sports in the United States. And a cursory examination of those results suggests the hits for "two-year college" are actually inflated with false-positives. "Two-year college sports", two-year college football", and "two-year college basketball" are not common phrases in the United States. The American verbiage for those subjects is "junior college sports", "junior college football", and "junior college basketball". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The language situation is similar for senior, four-year higher ed institutions and their sports in the US. We have "universities" and "colleges", but the sports are always just "college". See Category:Universities and colleges in the United States and Category:College sports in the United States. "University football" is not a thing in the US. We call it "college football", even when a team from the University of Michigan plays a team from Ohio State University. Similarly, "two-year college football" is not a thing. It's called "junior college football". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My statement was and is that: junior college and community college are used interchangeably. So we on Wikipedia should not be choosing one or the other when grouping them together in a united category name. So instead - as has apparently already been done with the parent, as well as with the category under discussion - we should use a neutral term that encompasses both. In this case: Category:Two-year colleges in the United States.

  Your responses have not addressed this at all. - jc37 02:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "junior college" and "community college" are not used interchangeably when talking about sports. When speaking or writing about sports generally, the dominant form by far is "junior college". And "two-year college" is virtually never used. My argument from the outset has addressed that language used at the level of sports is not necessarily the same as at the level of schools. You refuse to acknowledge this point, and have denied the presentation of evidence to support it. Would you care to comment on the analog I presented, Category:Universities and colleges in the United States and Category:College sports in the United States? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, every subcat are referred to as "junior college..." which showcases an already established naming convention in the context of intercollegiate sports. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Every subcat? What about Category:California Community College Athletic Association? - jc37 22:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  California Community College Athletic Association is a proper name. The sports that that org administrates are generically referred to as "junior college" or "JUCO" sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think what's being missed here is that the nominated category is a child of Category:Two-year colleges in the United States and Category:College sports in the United States. And interestingly, the article is called: College sports. Also, not all junior or community college are actually "2-year" schools. I don't disagree that "Two-year" isn't a great name, only that it's more Neutral than calling the cat "junior colleges". That it also has to do with the topic of sports is actually immaterial. I've been thinking about this, and I think the best course of action would actually be to UpMerge Category:Two-year college sports in the United States to Category:College sports in the United States (otherwise, Keep as is, per my comments above). The nommed category is merely filled with subcats. And after all, we don't divide Category:College sports in the United States by sport this way, for example. It looks like the majority of the junior/community college sports trees were very recently created, and I'm now questioning that split. If the difference is not due to being "two year colleges", then what is the difference? This is especially true, since the terms junior college and community college can have different meanings in different countries. If the criteria cannot be Neutrally named and defined, then there shouldn't be a category, per fundamental Wikipedia policy, also noted at WP:CAT. - jc37 22:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  jc37, the difference is that the junior college (JUCO) sports are considered a completely different level of competition from (four-year) college sports, now and for the past several decades, administrated largely by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). It gets messier back before the World War II era, but certainly for the last several decades, there is no cross-over. And, yes, there are actually four-year schools that play at the junior college level. Vincennes University is a four-year academic institution that awards bachelor's degrees, but the school completes in sports at the junior college level. Only freshmen and sophomores play on the intercollegiate sports teams at Vincennes. If you knew the first thing about American college sports, you'd understand this that "JUCO" and "college" are categorically different. Your claim "that it also has to do with the topic of sports is actually immaterial" is false. The common generic name of the sports concerned here is different than the common generic name of the associated academic institutions. This is the crux of our problem here . You've also failed to address the analog I presented above, Category:Universities and colleges in the United States vis a vis Category:College sports in the United States, which drives home the point. Your persistent application of your ignorance of topic is not helping here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ad hominem. Shrugs. You're incorrect about me, but I won't try to explain that. You are so focused on the sports part of this, that you're missing the forest for the trees. The category system is a series of trees, not just isolated categories. I've understood your point all along. The issue is that you are - please pardon the phrase - being myopic. You are only seeing this through a lens related to sports. And what I've tried repeatedly to point out is that the naming structure of this tree involves more than sports. And needs to be Neutral. You can assert that community college and junior college are not used for the same types of schools in the US if you want. But the sources don't support that. Where you repeatedly hang your hat is that sports organisations use one term more than the other. And yes, that's immaterial to the overall categorization of the topic of community colleges and junior colleges. I get it. You don't like this. I get it, you want to only focus on sports. But this is a big encyclopedia, and covers more than just the (sub-)topic that you are currently focused on.

  So again, to start with, we need a Neutral name to apply to these kinds of colleges, and THEN we can talk about sub-topics, like sports.

  A place you could start could be what those who help fund the schools call them - [4]]. Though there are a lot of varying names listed on the page, the overall term seems to be "community college". I'd welcome other references and ideas where to look. - jc37 08:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't make an "ad hominem", as in the fallacy of argumentation. I described the the source of your error here, which I also substantiated on its own merits. You've made the same sort of alleged "ad hominem" here with your claim of me being "myopic". Except the difference is that your description is inaccurate while mine is indeed accurate. You're ignorant about the basic structure of this subject area. I can tell from a number of your spellings, like "organisations", that you are not American. Essentially, you lack fluency in the native language here, American English. My focus here on Wikipedia is heavy on American college sports, but it's not as if I don't care of the rest of the encyclopedia or how what I work on meshes into that rest of the project. You still haven't addressed Category:Universities and colleges in the United States vis a vis Category:College sports in the United States, which again would drive home the point.

  Your link from the United States Department of Education, of course, makes no reference to sports. Here are a number of recent sources that describe relevant athletics, even at schools that are members of the California Community College Athletic Association, as "JUCO" or junior college.

• https://morganstatebears.com/news/2024/4/24/mens-basketball-morgan-state-adds-west-la-college-transfer-marland-harris.aspx
• https://www.si.com/college/cal/caltransfersinandout
• https://www.localmemphis.com/article/sports/ncaa/memphis-tigers/memphis-basketball-lands-juco-transfer-bouna-kebe/522-a41e6866-ded3-41b7-b5ee-fc41a56ce473
• https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2024/12/dana-altman-court-injunction-for-diego-pavia-would-be-good-for-college-basketball-oregons-junior-college-transfers.html
• https://hussoneagles.com/news/2023/5/30/mens-basketball-mens-basketball-adds-juco-transfer-njia-to-2023-24-recruiting-class.aspx

  Further to your (false) claim "you want to only focus on sports", if you actually looked into it, you might see that I've done a bunch of work outside of the explicit realm of the college sports, at the level of the academic institutions themselves, like creating Category:Contra Costa College and Category:Riverside City College, and hundreds of other similar edits. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Jweiss11 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The "source of [my] error" - continued subjective interpretation (and presumption) by you about me. Or in other words, "not discussing the topic, but instead the editor" aka ad hominem. My comments were in response to that.

  "you only want to focus on sports" - in this discussion. Which, again, you still are... Hence: myopic. shrugs.

  Anyway, still looking for sources as to an inclusive neutral name for commmunity colleges and junior colleges. - jc37 02:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have no objection to renaming Category:Two-year colleges in the United States to Category:Community and junior colleges in the United States. Note that the parent cat there is simply Category:Junior colleges, which is global in scope. Perhaps Category:Junior colleges should renamed to be more "inclusive"? With respect to community and junior colleges in the United States, the "community" there simply doesn't carry down in American common usage when talking about the sports played by these schools. Just like how in the United States, four-year schools of higher education are called both "colleges" and "universities", hence we have Category:Universities and colleges in the United States. But the "university" simply doesn't carry down in common usage when we discuss the sports played by these schools. There we find Category:College sports in the United States, college athletics in the United States, college basketball, college football, 1955 college football season, etc. It's not "university and college football". No one says that. We simply say "college football". Do you see me discussing both the schools and their sports? I sure do. Anytime you want to admit you're wrong and/or apologize for your false statements about me, my work on Wikipedia, and my arguments here, I'm open to receiving that. At this point, I don't think there's anything more I can say. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recall saying anything about your work on Wikipedia. And I believe I asked your pardon when initially using the word "myopic". Shrugs.

  Your points about "college", is why I brought up the alternative suggestion that perhaps it might be better if the community college cats were merged with the college cats.

  And your points also seem to be fair examples of how the categories are apparently not currently named consistently, in these trees.

  If in the end, we can't find sourcing for an inclusive name, then perhaps Category:Community and junior colleges in the United States would be the way to go, as you note. - jc37 05:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So "pardon" is a free pass to say whatever you want afterward? What you said about my work on Wikipedia: "I get it, you want to only focus on sports...But this is a big encyclopedia, and covers more than just the (sub-)topic that you are currently focused on." My focus right here, and my editing generally of college sports on Wikipedia, has never lost the upward connection to the academic institutions overarching the sports. This nomination was made specifically with that context in mind, hence the qualifying verbiage of "in the context of intercollegiate sports". I was and still am keenly aware of what's going on upwards in the tree here.

  The point I was trying to drive home (again, for what, the fifth time?) with what I think you are referring to with "college" is how the common language changes as you drill down from the academic institutions to the sports they sponsor. "University" goes away at the four-year level and "community college" or "two-year college" goes away at the two-year level. I've provided a number of references to support this. I've also explained why up-merging Category:Junior college football in the United States to Category:College football in the United States or the misnamed Category:Two-year college sports in the United States to Category:College sports in the United States is a mistake because these are fundamentally distinct levels of competition worthy of categorical segregation. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. I have said "in this discussion", and when I didn't, the context shoould make that obvious. Everytime I've said that junior college and community college are interchangeably used, you have responded to that through a lens of sports. Re-read above, it's all there.

  And of you and I, you are the only one bringing up "university" in this discussion. I double-checked, and did a search of this discussion to verify.

  and again, you continue to use examples of sports. The topic of rename is to change from "Two-year" to "Junior". The "sports" part of the name is mostly immaterial - it's not being proposed to be changed, and in addition the category rename should generally be consistent to the tree it is part of. So that needs to be resolved.

  This continues around in circles... - jc37 12:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Everytime I've said that junior college and community college are interchangeably used, you have responded to that through a lens of sports. – I'm not Jweiss, but this is a discussion regarding a sports category. I'm not sure I see why the usage of community college in a non-sports context should have bearing on a category exclusively regarding sports, or am I missing something here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because categories do not exist in isolation. They are part of a connected network aka trees. So when we discuss them, we do upon their own merits as well as part of the connected trees they are in.

  Think of it this way: Let's say this category gets renamed just as you and they suggest. Then, very likely, someone is going to nominate the parent and re-nominate this one for discussion, due to the disparity in naming between them. And at CfD, we "try" to not waste the valuable time of our volunteer contributors in re-nominations, if we can. So we try to address things the first time around. So at CfD, we try to be aware that there potentially may be a broader situation than merely the micro-topic at hand.

  Anyway, I want to thank you for asking, because - saying all of that - I realised that I have not yet tagged the parent as part of this discussion. I'll address that shortly. - jc37 07:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, Category:Two-year colleges in the United States is now tagged for discussion as well. So this discussion can/should be relisted if some uninvolved editor would please. - jc37 08:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  jc37, I see that you've tagged Category:Two-year colleges in the United States for deletion and directed the tag on that category to this discussion with a backdate. This appears to be a complete misuse of the CFD process. I certainly haven't nominated that category for renaming or deletion or anything else. What exactly are you proposing? 09:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  The default CfD template is used for discussion of a category, not only for "deletion". (Hence the title of this page: "Categories for discussion".) I would have used the more-specific CfR template, but as yet, no neutral name target seems to have been brought forth.

  As for what is proposed, just read above.

  And to guess at your possible next question: Yes, tagging additional categories is fairly common at CfD. - jc37 09:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'm not new to CfD. The tag you've put on Category:Two-year colleges in the United States reads "This category is being considered for deletion". I've never seen this tag used just to indicate that a category has been discussed in a nomination for another category without a clear proposal for what to do with that category. "As for what is proposed, just read above." I don't see a clear proposal here for this category. If you want to make a nomination for renaming Category:Two-year colleges in the United States, you should do so in a separate CfD. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then, very likely, someone is going to nominate the parent and re-nominate this one for discussion, due to the disparity in naming between them. – The parent two-year category has subcategories that are not named "two-year college etc." (Category:Alumni by junior college in the United States / Category:Florida's black junior colleges / Category:United States military junior colleges) but no one has nominated it for renaming because of it? Regardless, I don't think you should be adding that in here which substantially alters this discussion's meaning one month into the nomination. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I made the first comment to this discussion, and have brought this up since the start. - jc37 16:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because you were the first to comment here doesn't mean you can make a substantial change to the scope of the proposal one month into the discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per Jweiss11. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting as Category:Two-year colleges in the United States has also been tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 12:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HKLionel, Can you explain why you relisted this discussion? Category:Two-year colleges in the United States was not part of the original proposal, and no one has made a proposal to rename or merge or otherwise change the category? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"No one"? I'm really trying to AGF here, but are you really saying that you don't see all of the comments above?

Also, could you please stop going after people's actions, and focus on the categories? - jc37 16:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jc37, you've expressed a concern about the parent category, and the tree in general, and the "disparity in naming" between the original nominated category here and its parent. I've explain many times that this "disparity in naming" is due because there is a difference in language used by relevant reliable sources when discussing the academic institutions (alternatively called "junior colleges", "community colleges", and "two-year colleges") as a whole versus just the intercollegiate sports that they sponsor, which generically are almost always referred to simply as "junior college" or "JUCO" (an acronym for "junior") sports, football, basketball, etc. I've also brought up an analogous relationship, close by in the category tree, about four-year tertiary education intuitions in the United States and their intercollegiate sports. Those academic institutions are alternatively referred as both "colleges" and "universities" but the sports they sponsor are simply called college sports, college football, or college basketball, not "college and university football", even when the University of Michigan is involved. But instead of addressing the language shift in this close parallel, you replied with "And of you and I, you are the only one bringing up "university" in this discussion. I double-checked, and did a search of this discussion to verify." What? Yeah, I know. I'm the one who introduced this to the discussion, and I am the only once who's substantively broached it. What I can't get from you is a meaningful response about it.

You have made no clear proposal to rename, merge, or otherwise alter Category:Two-year colleges in the United States. The open-ended tagging of this extra category at the 11th hour of the one week period since the last relists reads like an attempt to game the system with a sort of filibuster. Believe me, my assumption of good faith and/or competence is being strained here as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Madera, California, by occupation to Category:People from Madera, California

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Also propose merging

• Category:People from Oroville, California, by occupation to Category:People from Oroville, California
• Category:People from Orange, California, by occupation to Category:People from Orange, California
• Category:People from Ontario, California, by occupation to Category:People from Ontario, California
• Category:People from San Bernardino, California, by occupation to Category:People from San Bernardino, California
• Category:People from San Mateo, California, by occupation to Category:People from San Mateo, California
• Category:People from Oxnard, California, by occupation to Category:People from Oxnard, California
• Category:People from Whittier, California, by occupation to Category:People from Whittier, California
• Category:People from Huntington Beach, California, by occupation to Category:People from Huntington Beach, California
• Category:People from Manhattan Beach, California, by occupation to Category:People from Manhattan Beach, California
• Category:People from Malibu, California, by occupation to Category:People from Malibu, California
• Category:People from Gorinchem by occupation to Category:People from Gorinchem
• Category:People from Gouda, South Holland, by occupation to Category:People from Gouda, South Holland
• Category:People from Katwijk by occupation to Category:People from Katwijk
• Category:People from Leiderdorp by occupation to Category:People from Leiderdorp
• Category:People from Leidschendam by occupation to Category:People from Leidschendam
• Category:People from Schiedam by occupation to Category:People from Schiedam
• Category:People from Maassluis by occupation to Category:People from Maassluis
• Category:People from Voorburg by occupation to Category:People from Voorburg
• Category:People from Vlaardingen by occupation to Category:People from Vlaardingen
• Category:People from Zoetermeer by occupation to Category:People from Zoetermeer
• Category:People from Zwijndrecht, Netherlands, by occupation to Category:People from Zwijndrecht, Netherlands
• Category:People from Barendrecht by occupation to Category:People from Barendrecht
• Category:People from Alphen aan den Rijn by occupation to Category:People from Alphen aan den Rijn

All subcategories with 3 or less entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Louth Senior Football Championship navigational boxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. Just one article that will fit in Category:Senior Gaelic football county championship navigational boxes The Banner talk 12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Crime by type to Category:Crimes

Nominator's rationale: This is kind of confusing, so I don't mind another solution, but the Crimes category is already doing crimes by type. This is just duplicating that. If anyone has any better suggestions as to what to do with this feel free. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:9th-century BC disestablishments in Vietnam (1) to Category:9th-century BC disestablishments and Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Vietnam

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1492 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1490s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1493 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1490s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1495 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1490s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1509 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1500s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1510 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1510s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1515 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1510s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1523 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1520s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1530 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1530s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1556 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1550s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1607 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1600s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1661 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1660s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1670 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1670s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1689 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1680s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1690 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1690s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1692 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1690s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1693 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1690s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1751 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1750s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1752 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1750s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1756 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1750s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1757 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1750s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1772 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1770s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1774 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1770s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1775 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1770s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1776 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1770s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1778 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1770s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1797 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1790s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1804 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1800s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1807 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1800s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1809 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1800s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1818 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1810s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1840 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1840s establishments in the Spanish West Indies
• Propose merging Category:1861 establishments in the Spanish West Indies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1860s establishments in the Spanish West Indies

Nominator's rationale: Merging years into decades because they are very sparsely populated. Most decades don't even have any. Unlikely to grow much due to the small population, especially in the more distant past. -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't they also be merged to Years in Spanish Empire categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Category:YYYY establishments in the Spanish Empire should be a target for each as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Can also delete Category:Establishments in the Spanish West Indies by year. Disestablishments and probably years themselves could be merged into decades overall. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per Marcocapelle. WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1090s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (4) to Category:11th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
• Propose merging Category:1100s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (4) to Category:12th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and move Lordship of Caesarea to Category:1100s establishments in Asia
• Propose merging Category:1110s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (5) to Category:12th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and move Lordship of Transjordan to Category:1110s establishments in Asia
• Propose merging Category:1160s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1) to Category:12th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
• Propose merging Category:1180s disestablishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (2) to Category:12th-century disestablishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
• Propose merging Category:1250s establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1) to Category:13th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Jerusalem by decade (5)

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1000s establishments in Japan (4) to Category:11th-century establishments in Japan and move Seimei Shrine to Category:1000s establishments in Asia
• Propose merging Category:1060s establishments in Japan (3) to Category:11th-century establishments in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Isolated categories. Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:17th-century German etchers to Category:German etchers and Category:17th-century German artists
• Propose merging Category:16th-century German etchers to Category:German etchers and Category:16th-century German artists
• Propose merging Category:21st-century German etchers to Category:German etchers

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Upmerge for now ^SMason_Garrison 00:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The last one can simply be deleted though, because Hans-Jürgen Schlieker is already in the 20th-century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]