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 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.
9th/10th century book decades
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. MER-C 18:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I have now addressed the parenting by using {{Bookdecade}} which generates automatic parent categories. – FayenaticLondon 13:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thank for fixing template. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and because few if any of the dates are actually known this precisely. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Johnbod: categories imply false precision. @Sugrammr: Please review this discussion and avoid creating similar categories; also, please see my edit summary in the history of Category:994 books which will soon be deleted as an empty category. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2019 (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.
Category:Scottish-language surnames
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 renaming Category:Scottish-language surnames to Category:Scots-language surnames
Nominator's rationale: "Scottish" is not a language. "Scottish Gaelic" is a real language spoken by a few Scots but Scots is an English language. Euanjohnb (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peterkingiron's alternative below. Grutness...wha? 03:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:Scottish surnames. Some of these are based on Scottish place-names (e.g. Selkirk, Hamilton). Some are English language (e.g. King, Armstrong). Some are Highland clans, which are presumably Gaelic. At least the Gaelic ones are not Scots-language, which is a dialect of English (or related language, according to your POV). On the other hand, I suspect that we have in the past deleted my target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually a merge instead of a rename, but it is a sound solution indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2019 (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.
Category:Winston-Salem City Council members
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. MER-C 10:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for a not inherently notable political position. Winston-Salem is not a city where the city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability, so there's little to no prospect of expansion -- and as it stands, there's just one person actually filed here at all, and even his article is up for deletion as it doesn't properly demonstrate that he's actually notable in the first place. But even in the unlikely event that somebody can salvage it enough to make it keepable, this category still wouldn't be needed for just one person. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two more. I started the category but I must admit that I am not sure why. It's a medium-sized city (about 250,000 residents) so there is a decent chance that more City Council members are notable but we can recreate it if and when that is found to be the case.--TM 21:04, 7 November 2019 (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.
Category:Konkani-language poets
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: "Konkani poets" refers to the same i.e. "Konkani-language poets"; poets from the region are already classified under Category:Poets from Goa. (See Category:Marathi poets) SerTanmay (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am not altogether familiar with Konkani, but if we substitute 'English', there will be English people who write in (say) Latin or Cornish, and (eg) American people who write in English. Also I have a feeling that previous similar cfds have preferred the precision of xxx-language over xxx. (I seemingly created the category: I have no recollection whatever of this or why I did it.) Oculi (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you created it after this CFD, taking the initiative to convert a now-deleted malformed list page (which partially duplicated List of Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Konkani) into a category. Do you oppose reverse merger? – FayenaticLondon 15:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge, more precise and relevant for poets than merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and purge if necessary. Analogy with a language as widely spoken as English is not helpful when considering those largely confined to a modest-sized area and people. 16:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Peterkingiron (talk)
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:Greensboro City Council members
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. MER-C 11:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for a not inherently notable position. City councillors are not routinely accepted as "inherently" notable, so this isn't readily expandable -- both of the two people here are notable for other reasons (one went on to become mayor and the other served in the state legislature) rather than because they were city councillors per se. So there would need to be a lot more than just two notable former city councillors to justify a dedicated category for them. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename I've expanded the total to 5 articles and have plans to add more. Greensboro apparently has an interesting history of electing African-Americans to the city council even during the Jim Crow period. It should be renamed to Category:Greensboro, North Carolina City Council members to match Greensboro, North Carolina.--TM 21:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- At least two of the people appear to fail WP:POLITICAN, so that I am doubtful whether there will continue to be 5 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:SMALLCAT does not even really apply in this situation. Greensboro is a city of almost 300,000 residents. Other comparably-sized cities all have more than a sufficient number of articles on City Council members. For example, Lowell, Massachusetts (population 111,000) has 20.--TM 19:11, 9 November 2019 (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.
Country subdivisions by administrative level
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 as nominated. MER-C 10:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Categories by administrative subdivisions to Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level
Propose reinstating Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level
Propose reinstating Category:Categories by country administrative level
Nominator's rationale: Contents were recently moved out-of-process. The original name was clearer, and better grammar. – FayenaticLondon 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The new name is gobbledegook. Oculi (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added related categories, where the contents were likewise moved out-of-process. – FayenaticLondon 11:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2019 (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.
Category:Male Rappers
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. MER-C 18:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This had been incorrectly copied/linked to Arabic Wikipedia, but I have now redirected the duplicate category there and merged the Wikidata items. – FayenaticLondon 13:09, 7 November 2019 (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.
Category:Free encyclopedias
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 manually. MER-C 11:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Free online encyclopedias Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Double merge also to the other parent Category:Free content. Rathfelder, you have once again made a CFD proposal without checking for other valid parents. – FayenaticLondon 10:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isnt any content to merge. The proposal is to delete the subcategory which is the only content. Rathfelder (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I'm afraid the full implications of proposals are not immediately apparent to me. Am I supposed then to combine them? Rathfelder (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say never mind for now. Presumably the closer of the discussion will fix the parenting or will ping us. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: you don't seem to grasp how the merge process works. Forgive me being long-winded now; I am not seeking to be patronising, but to give a clear explanation.
You nominated Category:Free encyclopedias, which is in both Category:Encyclopedias and Category:Free content, to be merged to only one of those parents. As you first stated, the only current content of the nominated category Category:Free encyclopedias is the sub-cat Category:Free online encyclopedias. Your proposal, if implemented simply by listing for a bot to process it in the normal way, would result in a bot editing the member page Category:Free online encyclopedias, removing it from Category:Free encyclopedias and adding it directly into Category:Encyclopedias. If this happened, the sub-cat Category:Free online encyclopedias would no longer be part of the hierarchy Category:Free content.
When you nominate a category, you need to consider what are the parents of that category, and whether its contents (either sub-cats or direct member articles) belong in more than one of those parent categories.
The CFM template may not help you make a nomination for merger to two or more parents, but you can edit the nomination after creating it, or just enter "ALL PARENTS" as the target in the first place.
I hope this is helpful. – FayenaticLondon 22:00, 12 November 2019 (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.
Categories by parameter
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 as nominated. MER-C 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Categories by regional categorization to VARIOUS as appropriate (in most cases, probably reinstating previous parents)
Nominator's rationale: The split between "noun" and "adjective" is arbitrary; some adjectivally-named categories have sub-cats "by nouns", e.g. Category:Categories by geographical categorization (adj) contains "by region" (noun). – FayenaticLondon 11:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be deletion. The subcategories are entirely unrelated, except for the fact that they are "by" something. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User comments
Support - accomplishes the difficult task of being worse than Category:Categories by parameter. Category:Categories by adjectival categorization contains some new absurdities too. 'Categories by parametric categorization' perhaps. Oculi (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories by category and Category:Categories by parametric categorization, just created, are ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Please see my new merge proposal which should be an improvement from merging to Category:Categories by parameter. Lmatt (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any category named Category:Categories by xxx categorization should be brought swiftly to cfd, held up to ridicule and expunged. Oculi (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that. CN1 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as author I have moved the contents of Category:Categories by adjectival categorization to Category:Categories by parametric categorization as tagged Category:Categories by adjectival categorization with C1 and G7 since Fayenatic london (talk·contribs) made the point: some adjectivally-named categories have sub-cats "by nouns". Lmatt (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also moved Category:Categories by noun categorization to Category:Categories by category. Lmatt (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I also added Category:Categories by category and "by parametric categorization" to the nomination. Thank you for your willingness to clean up after your own work, but please wait for consensus to develop here rather than moving things mid-discussion. Multiple moves clutter up the page history of the members. – FayenaticLondon 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. as per nom. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(various merge proposals)
New merge proposal
Category:Categories by category → Category:Categories by topical categorization
Category:Categories by parametric categorization → Category:Categories by encyclopedic categorization
Category:Categories by topical categorization to become a subcategory of Category:Categories by encyclopedic categorization by default
@Lmatt: you deserve a little historical explanation. Category:Categories by parameter is one of, and perhaps at the top of, many "X by Y" categories that were set up by user:Stefanomione, which made sense to him at the time, but which other editors did not understand intuitively. Many of those have since been dismantled, as a slow team effort. "Categories by parameter" remains even though it is not a good name, because no one has yet thought of a better name. You appear to have missed that Oculi's suggestion above was meant as a bad joke. Categories by thingy, by something, by whatever... Categories by defining aspect??? – that sounds good for a moment, but then again, that description should apply to every single category. Categories by characteristic??? – FayenaticLondon 07:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that some of your new names follow Category:Categories by geographical categorization which has been here for 5 years and currently holds categories by culture, language and location (aspects of human geography?). I haven't nominated that one here, because it's worth a separate discussion.
Part of the trouble with your approach is that by emptying categories and creating new ones, instead of renaming via the CFD process, you are leaving behind the page history of the category (which matters for GFDL), as well as the talk page and the interwiki links. – FayenaticLondon 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CN1 approach
I propose seeing this branch of the category system in the following manner:
I propose renaming Category:Categories by category to Category:Categories by categorization and making it the parent category of „…by categorization“ named categories.
its subcategories are, for now, the following three:
Category:Categories by geographical categorization (weak sideline suggestion to maybe consider: „categories by spatial categorization“)
Category:Categories by periodical categorization (weak sideline suggestion to maybe consider: rename it to „categories by temporal catgorization«)
Category:Categories by topical categorization
As I see it, this category for now has four subcategories only, because sport, religion, etc are topics, they are no topical categorizations. field and issue are topical categorizations.
Regarding potential confusion between »categories by enzyclopdic topic« and »categories by topic«
»categories by enzyclopdic topic« is a category that lists [classical enzyclopedic] topics by with [all kind of] topics are sorted). In the form ‚X by Y‘, it lists the Ys.
»categories by topic« is a category that lists categories, which are sorted by topic. In the form ‚X by Y‘, it lists the Xs. It would really help to rename it to »topics by topic«.
Editors seem to be channelling their inner Stefanomiones; this can be unwise as User:Lmatt is now blocked indefinitely. Category:Categories by categorization is an example of a category which should be discarded after a moment's thought and not added to "categories still standing as eternal rocks in the ephemeral Wikipedia stream" (User:Stefanomione). As for »topics by topic« ... Oculi (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither an idea who Stefanomiones is nor willingness to research him. If you have something substantial to address my post with, that would be helpful. CN1 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CN1: see my message addressed to Lmatt.[1] I'm afraid that like those two editors, your suggestions so far on these meta-categories are not gaining support, because they are likewise not intuitively clear. – FayenaticLondon 14:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi Okay, okay, but what is it specifically, that is not clear in these categories that the proposal mentiones or in my proposed approach? People so far did nothing but comparing me to a user who, as far as I understand, might have done some confusing categories, but as I see also did created extremely many useful categories. Just saying the categories are bad and confusing is not enough, WHAT is it about them that confuses you? CN1 (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CN1 ! Stefanomione (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I presume we can now delete all categories nominated or created during this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying? CN1 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, Stefanomione is a blocked user who created many weird categories similar to the ones we are discussing now. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Rather, he is under a WP:TOPICBAN from working on categories. – FayenaticLondon 08:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fayenatic london ! Stefanomione (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that these kinds of categories are considered not useful in general. I disagree with that because what they are doing is providing an overview on the differnet ways of categorizations itself: categorization by (1) topic, (2) time or (3) space / location. Naturally, the by far largest portion will be about categorizations by topic and here we need to make sure to have at least 2 categories: One that lists all the numerous topics (politics, history, ..) that are getting categorized and another category which lists several parameters [X] by which categories (topic not specified, hence »categories«) are getting categorized: subcategories names have form (category by X). CN1 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categorically rejecting a naming syntax or type of categorization solely based on ... whatever reason you personally might have with it, is no good practise. I ask in which way letting the categories well alone and let people naturally further develop them to their liking would be disruptive to the rest of Wikipedia. Let it sit. Give it time. See for example Category:Categories by geographical categorization, it's 5 years old and is doing rather well. CN1 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New comments, December 2019 to present
Suppport mergers of Category:Categories by parameter, Category:Categories by category and Category:Categories by parametric categorization. Neutral for the topical, periodical and regional mergers. Currently by parameter by category and by parametric categorization have the same purpose of being the root of the same tree. There is no real distinction between them and they should be merged to avoid confusion and improve navigation. For the others I'm unsure. On the one hand the tree is so large some sort of subcategories are needed on the other it's not intuitive what's in it and what's not making a larger category potentially making it easier to find what you're looking for. I think an overwhelming restructuring of the tree is required and this will probably require a lot of CfDs. Perhaps an upmerge of these three, and maybe some more and then combining related categories together in subsequent discussions could be a good way forward? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category: Categories by category. totally recursive.
Comment I'm not sure what exactly is going on but several of these categories (listed above) have just been emptied before this discussion has been closed. LizRead!Talk! 02:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Liz' comment refers to a non-admin closure by a participant, which was reverted by JJMC89. The first two nominated categories were deleted on 6 Nov, see LMatt's initial comments; the others are not currently empty. – FayenaticLondon 10:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination, the split has been made based on trivial characteristics. (I notice that my alt proposal to delete the categories does not get support, and merging is a next best option.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2020 (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.
Category:Lists of artists by biographer
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:Compilations of biographies about artists. MER-C 09:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of artists by biographer to Category:Lists of biographies about artists
Propose deleting Category:Categories by biographer
Nominator's rationale: Current name "by biographer" does not appear to fit all the members, since only some of the contents have the biographer's name in the article name. – FayenaticLondon 08:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would expect Category:Lists of biographies about artists to contain lists of books, not artists (and biogs "of"). As far as I can see, all the members contain lists of artists in particular biographical collections, as the name suggests. The currect title is a little awkward, but does the job. Category:Lists of artists in biographical compilations or something might be better. Thanks for the heads-up! Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be a correct outcome, as articles which are lists are distinct from articles about biographies. – FayenaticLondon 09:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: As you were the user who created this category, I would welcome your input on this upmerge proposal. Lmatt (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Category:Categories by biographer (requested speedy deletion as authorWP:G7). Lmatt (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC); deleted 19:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's good; I've added "see also" links in both directions. – FayenaticLondon 09:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It currently contains 2 entries - at full strength I imagine it would contain say 400, including a high proportion of art historians. That's not so good. Please start filling it. Alternatively, it partly seems to duplicate Category:Biographies about artists (also very under-filled), so may be we don't need it. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- The present name does not appear to reflect the contents. Some of these are older works that are the equivalent of what we would now call biographical dictionaries. I would suggest Category:Biographical compilations on artists or something like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All except one of these are indeed "older works", I think 250+ years. Few if any could be called "biographical dictionaries" as they have a relatively small group of biographies, say 50-200. Category:Biographical compilations on artists surely isn't grammatical, and one of the points of the category is that it contains article that list the subjects covered, with the exception of Benezit Dictionary of Artists, which doesn't list the 170,000 biographical entries the book contains, and should not be in the category. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peterkingiron's alternative, the category contains articles about books, the category title should reflect that. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All articles here are about individual books, although the first two enteries (Artists in biographies by Giovanni Baglione and Artists in biographies by Filippo Baldinucci) seem to imply otherwise due to their confusing names, thus making the original proposal confusing. The other proposed names aren't optimal either, but better. My personal preference would be Category:Compilations of biographies about artists because it makes gramattical sense and is consistent with parent categories, but Category:Biographical compilations on artists would also be fine. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be happy with Category:Compilations of biographies about artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please close or relist -- I would support the variation on my suggestion, Category:Compilations of biographies about artists. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2019 (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.
Category:ZEE5 original films
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 Category:Zee5 original films to Category:ZEE5 original films. MER-C 11:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate Category Category:Zee5 original films already exists. Sid95Q (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Category:Zee5 original films should be the one deleted. Kailash29792(talk) 15:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge, we should not have two different categories with the same purpose (even less with the same name). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, reverse merge, not merge, per Fayenatic london below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per ZEE5, and redirect Category:Zee5 original films which may be useful in this case to prevent re-creation. – FayenaticLondon 10:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 15:20, 15 November 2019 (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.