WP:CFD/T

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page[edit]

Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes[edit]

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today[edit]

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_May_4

May 4[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Sikh monarchs[edit]

Propose merging Category:Sikh monarchs to Category:Punjabi people and Category:Jat rulers

Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt proposal: upmerge Category:Sikh monarchs to Category:Monarchs by religion, purge Category:Maharajas in Punjab (is in the Category:Monarchs in Asia tree). All other parents appear to be inappropriate: not all Sikhs are Punjabis and vice versa (e.g. Punjabi Muslims), not all Jats are Sikhs and vice versa (e.g. Jat Muslim), and not all Maharajas in Punjab were necessarily Sikhs, and it is WP:NONDEFINING for the category (tree) as such; after all, geography defines the Category:Monarchs in Asia tree, and so does Maharajas in Punjab (emphasis by me). In short, there's a lot of generalisation and WP:ARBITRARYCAT going on in this tree. The only thing that really works is placing Category:Sikh emperors into Category:Monarchs by religion; hence my Alt proposal. NLeeuw (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that. Chand Kaur is already in Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is to merge Sikh monarchs, so the fact whether or not they were Sikhs becomes moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What do you mean? That being a Sikh is WP:NONDEFINING for Sikh monarchs? We do have a Category:Monarchs by religion tree, you know? NLeeuw (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan families[edit]

Propose merging Category:Hindkowan families to Category:Hindkowan people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan diaspora[edit]

Propose merging Category:Hindkowan diaspora to Category:Hindkowan people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional West Asian people[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Fictional West Asian people to Category:Fictional Asian people; purging Category:Fictional Arabs and Category:Fictional Middle Eastern people (has been cat-see also'd), because not necessarily "Asian"
Propose upmerging Category:Fictional Central Asian people to Category:Fictional Asian people
Propose upmerging Category:Fictional South Asian people to Category:Fictional Asian people
Propose upmerging Category:Fictional Southeast Asian people to Category:Fictional Asian people
Propose upmerging Category:Fictional East Asian people to Category:Fictional Asian people

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#Category:Fictional Western European people (all Upmerged) per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except West Asia. Most people agree on the definitions of the subregions of Asia, except for West Asia and the classification of Afghanistan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a simple reading, shall we?

South Asia#Definition: The geographical extent is not clear cut as systemic and foreign policy orientations of its constituents are quite asymmetrical. Beyond the core territories of the Indian Empire (territories of the British Empire which were under the system of British Raj), there is a high degree of variation as to which other countries are included in South Asia.

Central Asia#Definition: The borders of Central Asia are subject to multiple definitions.

East Asia#Definitions: (complicated, read for yourselves)

Southeast Asia#Definition: Although from a cultural or linguistic perspective the definitions of "Southeast Asia" may vary, the most common definitions nowadays include the area represented by the countries (sovereign states and dependent territories) listed below. (WP:UNSOURCED, typical case of WP:OR)

West Asia#Definition The term West Asia is used pragmatically and has no "correct" or generally accepted definition.

It's quite evident that there are no universally accepted definitions of these subregions. Same as with Europe. East Asia seems closest to having a commonly accepted definition, but even there we see lots of variation in official usage by governments and international organisations like the UN. Geography doesn't really provide natural boundaries, at least very few that seem to follow present-day national borders. (E.g. the Himalayas do represent the northern boundary of "South Asia", but UNESCO includes Tibet and Uyghur in "Central Asia", which most definitions include into "East Asia", so that doesn't help very much.) As LP indicates, Afghanistan could be included in Central, South and even West Asia (for biological, geological or cultural-linguistic reasons); Pakistan is also sometimes included in "Middle East / West Asia and North Africa". Myanmar could be both South and Southeast Asia. And so on. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public baths in the Arab world[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Public baths in the Arab world to Category:Public baths, except those already in Category:Public baths in Spain

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 5 out of 16 are located in Spain, 1 in Israel, which are not usually considered part of the "Arab world" (itself a contested and arbitrary term). It also seems that "Turkish bath", "Islamic bath" and "Arab(ic) bath" are all lumped together. I think the non-Spain articles are best upmerged for now. For the others, subcategories can be created once they have at least 5 articles. Morocco, Syria, Egypt etc. NLeeuw (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hammam per article title Hammam. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm but not all of those were "Turkish/Ottoman" baths. I do agree that some of them could be transferred to Category:Ottoman baths instead, especially the 9 with "Hammam" in their article titles. NLeeuw (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I understand from the Hamman article, it does not have to be restricted to Turkish/Ottoman. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ok. Rename to Category:Hammam per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history[edit]

Propose deleting:

more categories nominated

Nominator's rationale: delete, Natural history used to be what we call Natural sciences today, the umbrella term of biology, physics, chemistry etc. The current meaning of natural history is very fuzzy. The content of these categories largely overlaps with Category:Environment of Bangladesh, Category:Environment of Barbados etc. This is a follow-up nomination after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_11#Natural_history. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. These are WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.

But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.

The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.

It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".

As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any grouping in science that treats biology (flora and fauna), geology and paleontology as a coherent group. Neither "natural history" nor "natural sciences" are commonly used for such combinations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, it seems that all of these are included under the headings of "natural history" and "natural sciences". So are those groupings invalid, or just not the categories that come first to mind when thinking of individual sciences? P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They are included under the headings of "natural history" here in Wikipedia categories. But that does not mean anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If "natural history" and/or "natural sciences" are valid categories of science, as they seem to be, then it makes sense to group the subjects of these headings by location. Anyone researching places, such as West Virginia, California, Poland, Saudi Arabia, etc. would presumably benefit from finding categories containing sciences related to those specific places, as opposed to history, politics, economics, etc. It may be possible to subdivide "natural history" or "natural sciences" into narrower groups of topics—but that doesn't mean that the overarching categories are of no value to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all country and continent categories as an unnecessary duplication of existing categories. We should probably keep Category:Natural history and Category:Natural history museums by country‎. But if not deleted, due to lack of consensus, then restore those deleted in the previous nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Beringia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Dimadick. Nom seems to ignore the fact that the English term Beringia is also used for a present-day region. That it doesn't usually appear on present-day maps is an argument from anecdotal evidence. If nom could demonstrate that the category arbitrarily mixes up past and present in a confusing manner, that would be interesting to consider for a renaming or split, or something. NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virginia dynasty[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Virginia dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT. The category is a limited scope to only four people. There will not be further additions to this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Five articles are more than enough for a category. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean to delete, it does not seem a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main article Virginia dynasty is poorly developed, and most of the bios of the 4 presidents do not even mention the term, or only in passing. The term "dynasty" can only be considered a very loose metaphor anyway, as these were elected presidents in a republic, not related to each other biologically, none of them was born in Virginia, the 2nd president John Adams breaks the "line", even the first president's "Virginity" (pun intended) is questioned in the 2nd sentence, so all we really have is 3 presidents who weren't really born in Virginia, not really related to each other, not really monarchs who succeeded each other dynastically, being randomly associated by some people, but not really a lot of people. Yeah... nah. We might almost delete the main article as well, but that's beyond this CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. Not all these battles involved Portugal, but they did have something to do with the Azores. NLeeuw (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Uganda[edit]

Propose manually upmerging Category:Battles in Uganda to...

Category:Battles involving Uganda if Republic of Uganda was a participant;

otherwise to Category:Military history of Uganda

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. I propose to manually upmerge these to battles in Uganda where applicable, and if the modern Republic of Uganda was not a participant, to Category:Military history of Uganda. NLeeuw (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but I would recommend Category:Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War as a third option. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well-spotted! There is large overlap with Category:Uganda–Tanzania War already. NLeeuw (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Latvia[edit]

Propose manually merging Category:Battles in Latvia to (where applicable)...

Category:Battles of the Livonian Crusade, or

Category:Battles involving the Livonian Order, or

Category:Battles involving Latvia, or

Category:Military history of Latvia (remainder)

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. These battles are an WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:OVERLAPCAT mix of Category:Battles of the Livonian Crusade, Category:Battles involving the Livonian Order, Category:Battles involving Latvia, and others. I propose to manually merge all items into one of these categories (if they're not there already), and put any remainders into Category:Military history of Latvia. NLeeuw (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, "in Latvia" is anachronistic because Latvia did not exist yet, but there have been other states in the same region who already have their own battles category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Jamaica[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Battles in Jamaica to Category:Military history of Jamaica

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Even if it were defining, it's only 3 items, so Upmerge for now applies. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the anachronism argument (which I argued below) may not apply, arguably this refers to the island of Jamaica. But nom is right about the small size of the category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Estonia[edit]

Propose merging Category:Battles in Estonia to Category:Military history of Estonia; purge Battle of Määritsa and Battle of Wesenberg (1268)

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Parent Category:Battles involving Estonia does not apply to 13 out of 15 articles, as "Estonia" as such did not exist, or was not a participant. Battle of Määritsa and Battle of Wesenberg (1268) are already in Category:Battles involving Estonia, and although that involved the Estonian partisans/Forest Brothers and the Duchy of Estonia (1219–1346) ("Danish Estonia") respectively, that is arguably correct. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, "in Estonia" is anachronistic because Estonia did not exist yet. "History of" is arguably correct though. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Angola[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Battles in Angola to Category:Military history of Angola
Alt proposal: manually recategorise most contents to Category:Battles involving Portuguese Angola; Upmerge remainder to Category:Military history of Angola

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Not all battles involved the modern republic of Angola, so parent Category:Battles involving Angola does not always apply. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location.

Alt proposal rationale: A partial alternative may be to manually recategorise the majority of the contents into a to-be-created Category:Battles involving Portuguese Angola (as many involved the colony of Portuguese Angola), and Upmerge the remainder to Category:Military history of Angola. NLeeuw (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer the alternative because many of the battles did involve (Portuguese) Angola. The alternative will also ensure that the battles are kept in the tree of Category:Portuguese Angola if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. NLeeuw (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private battles in the British Isles[edit]

Propose upmerging WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, Category:Private battles in the British Isles to Category:Military history of Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NARROWCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Unclear what added value "private" has, and both other parents by definition do not apply to all items and subcategories. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, per nom, but disperse to Category:Military history of England and Category:Military history of Scotland because Category:Military history of Great Britain is only about the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's well-spotted. I agree with you. NLeeuw (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Battles involving the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NARROWCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Category:Sultanate of Rum is already in Category:States in medieval Anatolia, that should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from asthma in the Isle of Man[edit]

Propose splitting Category:Deaths from asthma in the Isle of Man to Category:Deaths from asthma and Category:Disease-related deaths in the Isle of Man

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one asthma death in the isle of man, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval canals[edit]

Propose merging Category:Canals opened in the 1120s to Category:Canals opened in the 12th century and Category:Transport infrastructure completed in the 1120s
Propose merging Category:Canals opened in the 1230s to Category:Canals opened in the 13th century and Category:Transport infrastructure completed in the 1230s
Propose merging Category:Canals opened in the 1270s to Category:Canals opened in the 13th century and Category:Transport infrastructure completed in the 1270s
Propose merging Category:Canals opened in the 1390s to Category:Canals opened in the 14th century and Category:Transport infrastructure completed in the 1390s
Propose merging Category:Canals opened in the 1460s to Category:Canals opened in the 15th century and Category:Transport infrastructure completed in the 1460s
Propose merging Category:Canals opened in the 1490s to Category:Canals opened in the 15th century and Category:Transport infrastructure completed in the 1490s

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated categories with very little content, this does not contribute to easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]