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: procedural close. There is nothing left to do here, as the category has been deleted. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 13:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Criticism of work to Category:Critique of work

Nominator's rationale: The rest of the template and main page is named critique of work, so it makes sense to have a uniform name. Pauloroboto ( talk) 17:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your assistance

Kind regards, Pauloroboto.

Pauloroboto ( talk) 17:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• • Support To match the main article, critique of work. Dimadick ( talk) 04:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The nominator is a Single Purpose Account that has been adding categories to various pages and has added links within article text on several pages, apparently in an effort to bolster search results and page view counts on the fringe topic on which they edit. This proposed merge matches the category name to one of the articles of interest to the editor. Category:Critique of work has been proposed for deletion and should be deleted, not enhanced to match one editor's POV article content. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge, not all criticism is part of Critique of work, for example Tang ping isn't, but Critique of work is part of Criticism of work. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Agree - Reverse merge -That makes sense to me, and it addresses the SPA problem, reflecting a more NPOV general definition of the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge. -- Just N. ( talk) 11:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Critique of work has been speedy deleted per WP:C1 on March 24. At this stage, the question is whether Category:Criticism of work should be renamed to Category:Critique of work or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 13:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• As there is no content left for a reverse merge the nomination has become moot. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: soft merge ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Theaters in Derbent to Category:Derbent

Nominator's rationale: The member page Judeo-Tat theatre is a cultural genre, not a building. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: soft rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:User kik to Category:User ki

Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ Pppery: just checking: is there consensus that ISO-639 1 code is preferable over ISO-639 2 code? Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  I don't think it's codified anywhere, but it's clearly followed by the majority of the Category:Wikipedians by language tree. For example, we have Category:User en and Category:User es, not Category:User eng and Category:User spa. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: soft rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:User kua to Category:User kj

Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. Alternately delete since the category contains only a userbox and no actual users. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: soft rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:User lub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:User lu
• Propose renaming Category:User lub-N ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:User lu-N

Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Bakeries based in California to Category:Bakeries of California

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other "Bakeries of ...X" categories. -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 00:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename per C2C, although the entire tree should be renamed to "Bakeries in X" convention for consistency with other types of businesses. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  I agree and planned to propose separately. Support moving all categories to "in", if possible. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 13:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support - convention in Category:Companies by country is 'of Foo'. Oculi ( talk) 12:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
• Prefer Category:Bakeries in California, but the nom's target would do. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  I agree, if all other categories are changed to "Bakeries in ..." for consistency (see above discussion). --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 20:15, 26 April 2022 (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.