Category:Scholars and instructors of spoken Latin or spoken Ancient Greek
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 purge and delete. Objections were raised to this category on the grounds of WP:NONDEFINING and WP:NARROWCAT. Consensus is that it shouldn't exist, but there were divergent opinions about what should happen to the articles in it. If someone wants to add these scholars to a list on e.g. Living Latin, now would be a good time to take a snapshot of the category membership. Because this is a category for Greek OR Latin scholars, not all of them can necessarily go to the same place, so a bot merge is not possible. The obvious solution is for someone to go through the articles and determine where under Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek or Category:Latinists each one should go, if it's not there already. If they want to create one or two lists at the same time (not sure what the article on modern spoken Ancient Greek would be), that might be a bonus, but I leave that to expert discretion.
In determining consensus, I have ignored the comments of User:Latvvot due to disparaging comments about other editors in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Beland (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose This page is most decidedly NOT redundant with Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek.
These two categories have only a small intersection, and the one group is obviously not a superset of the other.
Grammarians are grammarians.
Scholars and instructors of spoken Ancient Greek is a different set of people.
This page makes specifically clear that the page covers scholars and instructors "who use Latin or Ancient Greek as spoken, conversational languages". Most Ancient Greek grammarians in the previous few centuries did not do that. Also, very few instructors of spoken Ancient Greek can be properly called grammarians.
Thanks. Latvvot (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete, not a defining characteristic. If not deleted, split between Latin and Greek. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect. It is very definitely a defining characteristic. Encouraging spoken use of ancient Languages is a different and distinct business, and implies publishing a different kind of materials. Latvvot (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The guidance to "split it between Latin and Greek" indicates that the poster hasn't actually investigated the topic and doesn't really understand what's being listed. I recommend to future commenters to actually investigate the topic, first, and see what the defining characteristic is, before making snap judgments. No, at the moment there actually isn't a good reason to distinguish broadly between users of spoken Latin and users of spoken Ancient Greek. There is good reason to keem them together, becuase this is mostly the same crowd of people, with lots of professional interaction. The defining characteristic is making significant professional efforts to encourage the use of a "dead" classical language in spoken conversation. If you are not familiar with that as a professional activity, or you have never heard of it before, maybe investigate a bit, first? What do you really know about it? Latvvot (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
You should refrain from personal comments. I cannot check how much you know about the topic either. The defining characteristic is that they are classical scholars. And many of these articles belong in a Latin category only. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
No, this not true: "The defining characteristic is that they are classical scholars." The category page makes this very, very clear.
You are misrepresenting what is plainly stated in the category page. That is not the defining characteristic. I do not understand why you are misrepresenting the facts. Latvvot (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
As has been said repeatedly, including on the category page: The defining characteristic is making significant professional efforts to encourage the use of a "dead" classical language in spoken conversation.
You don't get to pretend that the defining characteristic is some other criterion not mentioned on the category page. The blurb on the page already makes clear that some of the people listed are not in fact classical scholars by profession. The category is titled "scholars and instructors".Latvvot (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep, the people proposing deletion are not actually reading what the category is, but are making a snap judgment based on assumptions, probably based only on the category title, without actually investigating the topic in the real world. Supporting spoken conversation is not a conventional pursuit for a Latin scholar or Greek scholar. Scholars usually discourage devoting any time to it. If we fold this category away we are ignoring and erasing the actual defining characteristic of the category, which has been clearly stated. Latvvot (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a double !vote. Place Clichy (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete. This serious topic will be better served by a topic article (such as Living Latin) rather than a category listing people, a bit randomly. Guideline WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates also gives valuable advice that applies here. In short: a topic article, or a list article, allows to consistently cover a subject with nuances, comments, links to reliable sources, and can be monitored through a watchlist, among other features; whereas categories lack the consistent coverage, nuance, sources, and individual articles are casually added or removed from it with little control and consistency. Spoken Latin and Greek are not so rare that it makes studies of them so distinct from the written studies. Think for instance that Second Vatican Council was conducted entirely in Latin. And of course: εχεί πιο πολύ κόσμο που μιλάει τα ελλήνικα που το νομίζετε. Place Clichy (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"Spoken Latin and Greek are not so rare that it makes studies of them so distinct from the written studies." Yes, they are rare and distinct. The topic at hand is not "studies," but cultivation of spoken Latin and Ancient Greek. And yes, that is exceedingly rare.
No, it is not true that Vatican 2 was conducted "entirely" in Latin. Very few bishops were able to discourse in even basic Latin, even in the 1960s. They used vernacular languages in breakout committees and informal discussions. For speeches in the main sessions, they relied on translators and prepared speeches.
Your Greek sentence (εχεί πιο πολύ κόσμο που) is Modern Greek, not Ancient Greek. And your Greek sentence contains an untruth. The ability to converse in Ancient Greek is exceedingly rare. Latvvot (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Why don't you folks use the opportunity to learn something new, that you did not know before? This category page is a collection of links to Wiki pages that already exist, describing people involved in this specific endeavor. It is not different from any other category page.
Does anyone dispute that Terence Tunberg has made significant professional efforts towards the modern use of spoken Latin?
Does anyone dispute that John Traupman made significant professional efforts toward the modern use of spoken Latin?
Does anyone dispute that Eduard Johnson made professional efforts to support the modern use of spoken Ancient Greek? Latvvot (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
That is beside the point. If facts were incorrect (or insufficiently sourced) they should be removed from the article text. That is not what this proposal is about though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(Not a new vote) Adding a Venn diagram, to illustrate why the premise of the merger proposal is factually incorrect: Venn diagram of cultivators of spoken Classical languagesLatvvot (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Split as a redundant category that covers two languages that are not closely related. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Are you aware that at most universities the study of both languages is covered by one academic discipline, namely "Classics," or a similar title?
If Oxford U. puts them together, why should Wikipedia arbitrarily separate them, in the case of this specific Category, which involves a smaller group of people doing similar and overlapping work? Latvvot (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Merge This is a much too narrow category to justify. Any who were not grammarians of Ancient Greek can be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
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.
Dual merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Tales (video game series) characters
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles. Should also be merged into subcategories as appropriate. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Triple merge to the first three parent categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Legacy of Kain characters
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.
Dual merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Darkstalkers characters
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles. Should be merged into other subcategories as appropriate. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Quadruple merge to the first four parent categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Star Fox characters
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles. Should be merged to other subcategories as appropriate. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Multiple merge to the first seven parent categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:American behavioral healthcare providers that offer higher levels of care
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.
Propose deletingCategory:American behavioral healthcare providers that offer higher levels of care(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Healthcare Providers not categorized this way Gjs238 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Just like below, what do you mean by your statement that they're not categorized this way? Crs5827 (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge to the category below if that one is kept, "higher levels" is too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Changing this to delete per Felida97 below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I understand how it sounds that way, but in behavioral/mental health, higher level of care (HLOC) has a fairly specific definition and is used in both clinical and academic settings to essentially mean non-outpatient care.
Ok, but it is not a defining characteristic. The articles in the category do not describe these institutes as being a HLOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? Three of the articles in the category at random:
That is merely a description of the services they are offering. It does not say they are a HLOC as a separate class. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
There are multiple ways to define an institution. If there were only one way, there could only be one category for each article. It's fair to say that providing higher levels of care is less central to Tufts Medical Center's identity as an institution than it is to Metro State Hospital, as that's their sole reason for being. But it's still quite relevant to Tufts.
Could you expand on 'separate class'? I'm not seeing that language anywhere in the policies about categories. Crs5827 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
What you are doing is a perfect example of synthesizing (WP:SYNTH). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
How is calling a psychiatric hospital an American behavioral healthcare provider that provides higher levels of care SYNTH? Or a rehab facility? I'm at a loss. Crs5827 (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
As a mere description, it is too subjective for a category. While if you claim that HLOC is an objectively defined class of institutions then it is not a defining characteristic. It is either one of these two. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The category is specific, and provides inherent definition. The characteristics of the category are verifiable and non-trivial. Crs5827 (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The category is currently uncategorized, perhaps you could try categorizing it? Gjs238 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Is that a requirement for categories? Crs5827 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It is, because it will allow users to find the category when they are navigating through the category tree. There isn't even a category tree Category:Behavioral healthcare providers so we definitely do not need something that is more specific in two respects. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It is about therapy, not about providers. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Merge/delete. These categories are not defining, and is vague.SMasonGarrison 19:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Delete per Marcocapelle, the "higher levels of care" aspect seems too vague, and if there is a specific, widely accepted definition, it's not a defining characteristic. Felida97 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
(Delete instead of merge since the discussion about the merge target has been closed with the result that it should be purged of providers for which behavioural healthcare is not a defining characteristic (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#Category:American Behavioral Healthcare Providers), and all articles in Category:American behavioral healthcare providers that offer higher levels of care that would survive such a purge are already in the target.) Felida97 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
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.
Propose mergingCategory:Pikmin characters to Category:Pikmin
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles. Should also be merged to to the other subcategories if not already present (Category:Video game characters by franchise obviously excluded). (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Quadruple merge to the first four parent categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic songs
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 with no objection to recreation provided reasonable population. I note that all cats with 3 or more have been removed, so deleting all. (non-admin closure)~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry categories with no corresponding article; this doesn't help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it was inappropriate to nominate so many categories together. Several of the clubs (such as Gateshead Town, whose player category has seven articles) are definitely notable enough for articles. It was also easy to find some additional players to add to some categories, so not all of them still have a single member. Number57 00:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Category:Gateshead Town F.C. players is an example of a problematic aspect of adding player categories without articles. It has probably been added in good faith to articles that has "Gateshead Town" on it. However, FCHD only lists a Gateshead Town FC active 1911–1915 and only two of the seven players fit within this timeframe. For some reason the Swedish Wikipedia article on Gateshead F.C. has an extensive, yet poorly sourced, introduction to football in Gateshead with the 1910s club starting in 1905, then one more Gateshead Town FC club active shortly after the WWI, and one later edition around the 1970s. The second one fits some of the players in the category and some are within the 1905–1911 timespan. Category:Church Town F.C. players has two players whose careers are separated by 120 years. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
FCHD only lists Gateshead Town's activity from 1911 to 1915 because it doesn't cover all leagues. Gateshead Town played in the Northern Alliance from 1904 until 1909 and then again from 1922 to 1924. This would be when Ernie Coquet, Teddy Davison and Clare Wilson played for them. Number57 23:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom, without objection to recreate any of these categories when an article about the club appears and if the category can be reasonably populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Any cat with 3 or more entries should be removed and kept. GiantSnowman 14:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Indo-Mediterranean
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.
Merge per above. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge per above --Lenticel(talk) 05:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge per above. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Soviet lichenologists
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.
I made another article for the Spanish lichenologists category, so it now has two (and a third is in preparation). Have no objection to merging Uruguayan lichenologists; I now realize I made the category hastily, and there aren't really any other notable Uruguayan lichenologists other the one already accounted for. Esculenta (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I've struck out Spanish lichenologists as it now has 2 entries. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category for a non-standard region. Eponymous article Abrahamic world can be moved to parent Category:Abrahamic religions, however other contents do not belong there. Place Clichy (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Likewise we might have a (separate) discussion about Category:Abrahamic mythology, Category:Abrahamic folklore and Category:Abrahamic legendary creatures. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete with manual merge per nom. – FayenaticLondon 13:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Chilean football play-by-play commentators
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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between type of commentary and nationality SMasonGarrison 12:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
If only the intersection is non-defining, it would be natural to instead merge–create Category:Football play-by-play commentators and Category:Football color commentators. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge for consistency, because this is not split for any other nationality afaics. I do not have an opinion on the definingness of the distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on Kaffet i halsen's proposal? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
MergeCategory:Chilean football play-by-play commentators to Category:Chilean football commentators because the distinction of a "play-by-play commentator" is unimportant and doesn't fit into an existing category tree. KeepCategory:Chilean football color commentators. It fits into Category:Color commentators, which is divided by nationality. While the other subcategories do not specify a sport, this one is populated enough that I see no reason to get rid of it or change its scope. No need to create Category:Football play-by-play commentators or Category:Football color commentators. Mclay1 (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We have 3 !votes in total, all supporting the first merge, and one opposing the second merge. Would like to see a clearer consensus for the second one before merging. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge one; keep one as Mclay1 suggests. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Video game superhumans by ability
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.
Propose mergingCategory:Video game characters with elemental and environmental abilities to Category:Fictional characters with elemental and environmental abilities
Nominator's rationale: This category and all its subcategories should be merged to the suggested parent category and its subcategories. It fails WP:CROSSCAT since "video game superhuman" is not a cultural phenomenon in the same manner as superhumans in general. There are also ones for anime and manga that are similarly dubious, so I will likely nominate those as well if this succeeds. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Procedural comment: the subcategories should be nominated too. Substantively I do not have an opinion about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak keepmerge I am inclined to agree with the nominator that different mediums do not portray similar superpowers differently. However, most of the categories diffused into one of the nominee's subcategories are large enough to require diffusion, and we diffuse video game characters by many other traits where diffusion by medium is used. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
If the subcategories are kept there is no point in merging the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
This !vote presumes that this is applied to the subcategories as well. Should they be added to the nomination? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding subcategories... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep. -- Just N. (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
This should be discounted as WP:JUSTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Wikipedia policies
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* Pppery *it has begun... 20:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Similar to Category:Dogs and Category:Individual dogs, "Wikipedia policies" does not imply it only contains individual policies rather than all pages related to policies. I therefore see no reason to change the status quo. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: The reason is to have a category that contains only Wikipedia policies, rather than Wikipedia policies and some other things that are related to them. That could be this category (achieved by either splitting off or just removing the above subcategories) or a new one (Category:Individual Wikipedia policies, perhaps?). jlwoodwa (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm neutral on splitting the category into the current name and Category:Individual Wikipedia policies, I just wanted to state my disagreement with the proposal as stated. That alternate suggestion is one I can support more. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Ten Years franchise
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Franchise" category for just two films that weren't even really a series, but just one film independently inspired by the other. Even if they were a true series, this wouldn't be necessary for just two films, per WP:NARROWCAT. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete for now, this is premature. The two articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep, I added Ten Years Japan, but maybe a rename is necessary. Interestingly, out of two The Hollywood Reporter sources, Clarence Tsui used "franchise", while Elizabeth Kerr used "series". Category:Ten Years films could be an option. Labratscientist (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Just FYI, there are 5 films in total: Ten Years (2015), Ten Years Japan (2018), Ten Years Taiwan (2018), Ten Years Thailand (2018) and Ten Years Myanmar (2023). I think that there should be a category for these films. Labratscientist (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Is there a list for these films? Dimadick (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs to be reevaluated Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Category:Fictional characters by occupation and medium
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:Consensus for reverse merge. -- Beland (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Propose renamingCategory:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament for constituencies in Cornwall(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Members of the Parliament of England for constituencies in Cornwall
Propose renamingCategory:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament for constituencies in Devon(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Members of the Parliament of England for constituencies in Devon
Propose renamingCategory:Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England for the University of Cambridge(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Members of the Parliament of England for the University of Cambridge
Propose renamingCategory:Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England for the University of Oxford(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Members of the Parliament of England for the University of Oxford
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to a previous CfD, which ended with no consensus on whether the subcategories of Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) should match that format decided on in a previous CfD or whether they should match the article Parliament of England and its eponymous category Category:Parliament of England. The subcategories are still following four different naming formats, which needs fixing, so this time I'm proposing the opposite to last time, that all the subcategories of Category:Parliament of England simply match the main category and article with no disambiguation. (However, compare Category:Parliament of Scotland.) Mclay1 (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge/rename in the opposite direction. I still believe that the terms Member of Parliament of England and Member of Parliament for England are too similar for users not to confuse them. This unavoidably ends in articles being misplaced. It was argued in the previous discussion that a 7-year-old can make the difference, which just is not true. I think that the main article Parliament of England is at the right place and should not be renamed, however there are too many items leading to confusion with categories for the present-day Parliament: both are in the same building, descend from one another, the names of constituencies and counties are the same, and when they are not they refer to place names most often still existing today. Many users will use tools like HotCats to populate categories, and consistently using the format Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) for Footown is most useful then to avoid the confusion, whereas a hatnote description in the category itself does not show up. Place Clichy (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
As per the previous CfD, I would also be fine renaming in the opposite direction as long as the categories are all named consistently and all moved at once to avoid the problem last time of the speedy renaming being unilaterally opposed by a user who didn't like the previous consensus. Mclay1 (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Consistency among the categories is indeed the more important objective here, and I somehow regret that it was not taken into account in the previous discussion's closure. I feel when reading again this discussion that there was a consensus for consistency among editors there. 2 out of the 3 editors preferring a name not referencing 1707 cited consistency in their motivation, whereas only 1 stood in the way. Place Clichy (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: No-one would be a "Member of Parliament for England", only for a constituency within England. Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain doesn't disambiguate by years, despite the potential for some people to confuse its scope with that of Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Perhaps someone might confuse the respective scopes of Category:Parliament of Scotland and Category:Scottish Parliament, or perhaps not; the category tree for the former has a mixture of dates and no dates. Category:Parliament of Ireland has some subcategories with "(pre-1801)", others without. I think I might be leaning towards having no dates for any of these. Ham II (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support for consistency with both the main article and consistency with the categories. If there were to be an RM proposal I would support a more specific name for the main article but, in the absence of that, we should defer to the other namespace and avoid repeating the mistake of Birmingham/Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Note to closer: Please don't close this as no consensus as what happened last time. There is clear consensus for change; the question is just which direction to go. If it closes as a reverse rename in the opposite direction, use the renames from the previous CfD as that is what is meant. Mclay1 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
I support this note. Most participants here and in the previous discussion support consistency among this set of categories. Also, arguments from both discussions should probably be taken into account to determine if the Members of the Parliament of England or Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) format is globally preferred. Place Clichy (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
As noted above, it seems there is consensus support for a reverse merge. I just wanted to verify that my understanding of what needs to be done is correct and complete before submitting a bot task.
I think there is consensus to rename Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) and its sub-categories only, not these additional ones. It is the expression "Members of Parliament" which is confusing and ambiguous when applied to England, not "Parliament of England". These categories should probably stay where they are per WP:C2D, unless another discussion later decides otherwise. Place Clichy (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Correct. @Beland, a reverse rename is basically implementing the previous CfD as nominated. Mclay1 (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Aha, I can pull the list from the previous CFD, then, Category:Members of the Parliament of England for constituencies in Berkshire et. al. -- Beland (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
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.
Delete – Clear duplicate. Keep the original with the better name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclay1 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per above. Gjs238 (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 05:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#Category:Monkey Island characters
Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)