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: upmerge to all parents, i.e. Category:College men's basketball competitions in the United States, Category:Sports in Orlando, Florida and Category:Walt Disney World. There is a clear consensus that this single-article category should not be retained, but no argument in favour of removing the article from the categories parents.
Please may I remind editors that when they believe a category is inappropriate, thy should check carefully whether deletion will remove articles from any relevant parent categories. If so, the category should be merged rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Old Spice Classic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too little content; contains one article, Old Spice Classic, and expansion seems unlikely.. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no point in having a one entry cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:College men's basketball competitions in the United States and Category:Sports in Orlando, Florida. Please check to see if articles in categories like this are properly categorised otherwise before !voting Delete - a straight delete would leave the article orphaned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 28 January 2013 (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: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Don Cannon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for eponymous parent cat for albums already properly categorized in albums by producer scheme. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only has one direct contents. The sub-cat does not need the eponymous parent cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reason to have contained categories for all albums categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (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: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Orhan Gencebay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for basically one article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we do not need this eponymous cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2013 (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: keep per the consensus that this category has enough content not to be too small per WP:SMALLCAT ... and ((minnow)) for the nominator for neither checking these points beforehand nor even citing the relevant guideline WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Los Prisioneros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the "there's enough content for a band" consensus that's developed, and a ((minnow)) for the nominator for not bothering to use WP:SMALLCAT as a rationaile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category contains four subcategories, albums, album covers, members and songs, with 17 articles between them, the band's article, discography, a tribute album and the band's template, so there is not "too little content." Four subcategories, three articles and a template should be enough to keep the category. Aspects (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2013 (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: result. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:New Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:New Wikipedians 2011-06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale:

Dead administration categories. I had a look at the registration dates of numerous users in the parent - thanks Popups! - and they range from 2006 to 2008; it's not being updated. The subcategory is for a single month in 2011, with a single user in it; apparently created through the outreach:Account Creation Improvement Project, a project which went nowhere. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not used enough to justify. Plus they lack any defining characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (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: result. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Afghan athletes to Category:Afghan athletes (track and field)
• Nominator's rationale In the closing of the last discussion on this it was claimed "no evidence has been presented that people outside of North America use athelte for general sportspeople". Well this [1] is an article from an on-line newspaper based in Afghanistan that has as its title "Afghan Taekwondo athlete defeats his Moroccan rival". I am pretty sure Taekwondo is not considered part of the sport of athletics, so clearly people in Afghanistan are using the term more generally, thus we should rename to avoid ambiguity. This article [2] from Afghan voice also seems to be using athlete=sportsman. At least the assumption seems to be that any olympic participant is an athlete, and I am not usre that either taekwondo or power lifting or even boxing would be considered part of the sport of athletics. Then there is this Bakhtar News article [3] that seems to assume any participant in the olympics is an athlete. So it seems obvious that publications in Afghanistan use athlete to equal sportsperson. They are not using it to only mean people participating in athletics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question And is there evidence yet that members of this category Waheed Karim and Abdul Baser Wasiqi are considered track and field athletes? --Qetuth (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clear evidence that the way this category name is being used is not the way the term is used in Afghanistan. If you could come up with a better solution, we would consider it. However no one has, so this works. At least in American English I would consider those people track and field athletes, and since the Afghan users seem to be following American usages, I would guess that they would too. I have clearly demonstrated that the current category name does not work in the way people in Afghanistan use English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support neutralization of the category name, and removing ambiguity in the naming of non-English localities, where the particular variety of English cannot be referneced to deambiguate the term -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2013 (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 per nominator to Category:Brand New (band). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Brand New to Category:Brand New (band)
• Nominator's rationale This looks on first clance like it is Category:Brand new, a category for putting very recent things in. We need to rename it so it is clear that the category is referring to a band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Overly ambiguous category names lead to maintenance headaches. Seems that some new users would categorize their new articles into this. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait I probably support either way, but believe this should not be closed until after the requested move is concluded. --Qetuth (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However as was pointed out by the IP there are maitenance issues here that would not really come up in the page. It is much easier to maintain pages than categories. So there is a strong argument to rename the category even if the page name is not changed. While I certainly hope the page name changes, there is not a concensus to do so (if they go with a strict vote, it is tied right now, well, I guess maybe one more for change if you count the nominator, of course I would hope the arguments about why the current name is leading to over searching would convince people there should be a change, but it seems like fans of the band are involved and feel it will be an insult to the band to not let it just have the name stand on its own). So I do not think this should have be tied to having to follow the rename of the page, because frankly it is much worse to have a badly names category, because people using hot cat to add categories or adding them in some other way never have to go and see what the category is, you have to at least click on the article before editing it, making it harder to put information in an article out of ignorance that it does not go there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and JPL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 30 January 2013 (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: relisted at CfD January 30. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Templates for peripheries (Kallikratis) to Category:Greece region templates

Nominator's rationale: Per main article Modern regions of Greece and other cats at Greece subdivision templates Constantine ✍ 15:00, 22 January 2013 (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 all to the lowercase format as used by the relevant workgroup: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Biblical Criticism articles by importance merge to Category:Biblical criticism articles by importance
• Category:Biblical Criticism articles by quality merge to Category:Biblical criticism articles by quality
• Category:File-Class Biblical Criticism articles rename to Category:File-Class biblical criticism articles
• Category:WikiProject Biblical Criticism rename to Category:WikiProject biblical criticism

Att he moment, we have two parallel groups of cats for this project (or actually a workgroup, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group), with different capitalization. These need to be merged (the first two), and two cats need to be renamed (the last two). While my preference is for the direction as suggested, I have no real problem if people prefer the mergers to go in the other direction; however, this will mean that a lot more cats (currently not tagged) will need to be renamen instead. Fram (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename to lower case form of criticism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge / Rename to "Biblical criticism" form (except note re WikiProject) to match title of parent article Biblical criticism, which uses lower case. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group is the full title of the WikiProject, and I'm not sure that Category:WikiProject Biblical Criticism is not a proper name of a group, which might well be justifiably capitalized. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - shouldn't Biblical be capitalised? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not according to the Britannica: [4]. Fram (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2013 (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: withdrawn. Dawynn (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nizhny Novgorod Oblast geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete this premature stub category and upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once article count permits. Dawynn (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to a wider area category, not plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, upmerge template per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The count in this category does nothing else but grow. I see no point in upmerging it now only to create it again later. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 23, 2013; 13:14 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Further research indicated that this category was undersorted. Corrected through additional tagging. Dawynn (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2013 (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: withdrawn. Dawynn (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rostov Oblast geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete this premature stub category and upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once article count permits. Dawynn (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to a wider area category, not plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, upmerge template per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The count in this category does nothing else but grow. I see no point in upmerging it now only to create it again later. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 23, 2013; 13:15 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Category had been undersorted. Corrected the issue by tagging more articles. Dawynn (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2013 (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: withdrawn. Dawynn (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kirov Oblast geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete this premature stub category and upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once article count permits. Dawynn (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to a wider area category, not plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, upmerge template per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The count in this category does nothing else but grow. I see no point in upmerging it now only to create it again later. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 23, 2013; 13:15 (UTC)

From the proposal in 2011 it looks like this category had 63 articles when created and was marked by nom as having become undersized in March 2012, and has since shrunk further to its current 14, so I'd hardly describe that as 'nothing else but grow'. The nominator did wait 10 months from marking it undersized until nominating it for deletion, and there is no influx of newly created articles that would imply we should expect future growth. --Qetuth (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I can't explain why the counts would go down. Perhaps some of the stubs were expanded to the point where they no longer need to be marked as stubs (which is a good thing). My point, however, is that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of articles qualifying for inclusion into this category (as well as the other two on this page), which are yet to be created (and slowly are). With that in mind, the counts will definitely go up once again. Upmerging/splitting/upmerging/splitting the cat every time the counts change is unnecessary (and unproductive) hassle, in my opinion. I stay with my oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 23, 2013; 14:20 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn. Category was just undersorted. This has been corrected by further tagging. Dawynn (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2013 (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: fainted delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fighting type Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_11#Category:Pok.C3.A9mon_species_by_type —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- we do not need split categories for pokemon. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this should have been deleted with the others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for subcategorization. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2013 (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: merge to Category:Fictional reptilians. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional reptilian Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_11#Category:Pok.C3.A9mon_species_by_type —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Fictional reptilians - I just want to note that while I technically created the page, it was Ncboy2010 (talk · contribs) I believe that added the category to all the articles first. I was simply too lazy to argue with him. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Category:Fictional reptilians. WE do not need any splits of pokemon. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Fictional reptilians and parent Pokemon category; no need for subcategorization for Pokemon. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2013 (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: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lucio Battisti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only content in this eponymous category are the artist's albums which are all already properly categorized and linkable through Lucio Battisti. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sparse eponymous categories for performers don't actually aid in navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not large enough to meet criteria for eponymous categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (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: moot. Already emptied and C1'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category:Roads in Atlanta, Georgia is sufficient. There are only one or two "streets" in Atlanta that are not "roads" so no need for this category which was mis-applied anyway. I've changed the category for the 6 articles listed here (of which 5 were roads not streets) and so the category is empty.Keizers (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not empty categories out of process. You should have nominated these for merging, and left it for the rest of us to see when needed doing. However I support merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2013 (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: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:GBT men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:LBT women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete.
These two categories were added a couple of months back to roll up the members of Category:LGBT people by gender. This seems to be doing nothing but causing confusion, as besides the usual run of people whose sexuality goes undiscussed in the article, everybody who is a direct member probably ought to actually belong in a child category; likewise, all the subcategories of these two are direct members of Category:LGBT people. Given those who try to deny a conventional gender assignment, I don't see how this particular division is well-advised. Mangoe (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not think this is a place where it makes sense to seperate men and women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It provides a level of unnecessary categorization and seems redundant with most of the subcategories. - MrX 03:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Makes categorization system less useful, and e.g. 'GBT men' is both 1. not a term and 2. confusing (just who qualifies as a T man?). LGBT people is infinitely preferable.Zythe (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary level of container categories using made-up, or at least not widely known or used, terms. The children can acheive whatever gender distinction is appropriate. --Qetuth (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disambiguation by gender is not particularly useful in a category which includes transgender people. It kind of defeats the purpose. Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2013 (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: keep. delldot ∇. 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sportswomen from Sydney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Sportspeople aren't divided by groups by city and gender ...William 00:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have policy for that? In Australia, we do strongly differentiate people who are from the big smoke vs people from the bush. Opportunities for education, sports training, etc are often very limited in rural areas. Category:Sportswomen from New South Wales is for people from the country regions, with the subset of Category:Sportswomen from Sydney being people from the capital city which is the only significant population center in New South Wales. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why remove a useful categorization? Of course sportspeople are divided by gender... all the time... nearly every competition. And yes, Australia is a big country, so we often divide by state and city. --99of9 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No they aren't done by gender. There isn't a city in the United States where they are grouped by gender. London England(with nearly 800 entries), no. Tokyo, no. Johannesburg, no. Mexico City, no. Moscow, no. Mumbai, no. Cairo, no. Those are ones I've checked or have worked on. Check out the cities here[5] and see if any have it done by gender WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a valid deletion argument either....William 14:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • See Category:Footballers from Greater London. These are by gender, by sport and by district. (women association footballers are in a different category tree). Also if you look at Category:Sportspeople from Sydney by sport, you will see a few 'sports' subcats (the football codes), which are only populated with males because they are actually subcats for the male only league, having a different category tree for the female leagues. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahem... did you even read the WP:ITSUSEFUL link you so helpfully pasted to "invalidate" my argument? The final sentence of that section explicitly says: "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." --99of9 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Sportspeople from Sydney. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Why upmerge? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. If upmerged there, it would also have to go to Category:Sportswomen from New South Wales. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. No it would be upmerge to Sportspeople from Sydney. Then most of these athletes are already categorized as such....William 14:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  But Sportswomen from Sydney are also Sportswomen from New South Wales; if you remove Sportswomen from Sydney, they would need to be upmerged to Sportswomen from New South Wales also. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course that can be solved by deleting the parent category too, which William has proposed now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_23#Category:Sportswomen_from_New_South_Wales. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with 99.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No real reasoning has been given to delete. John and 99 have shown this, and that there is in fact precedent. --Qetuth (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No clear reasons given for deletion. Precedent established, no ambiguity in use, and seems useful. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a logical way to divide a large caegory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2013 (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: keep, taking into account the discussion for Sportsmen from Sydney above. The consensus for that one was clear, this one, as was remarked below, should be considered together with it. delldot ∇. 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sportsmen from Sydney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Sportspeople aren't divided by groups by city and gender ...William 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why remove a useful categorization? Of course sportspeople are divided by gender... all the time... nearly every competition. And yes, Australia is a big country, so we often divide by state and city. --99of9 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No they aren't done by gender. There isn't a city in the United States where they are grouped by gender. London England(with nearly 800 entries), no. Tokyo, no. Johannesburg, no. Mexico City, no. Moscow, no. Mumbai, no. Cairo, no. Those are ones I've checked or have worked on. Check out the cities here[6] and see if any have it done by gender WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a valid deletion argument either....William 12:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem... did you even read the WP:ITSUSEFUL link you so helpfully pasted to "invalidate" my argument? The final sentence of that section explicitly says: "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." --99of9 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Sportspeople from Sydney. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Depends on the fate of Category:Sportswomen from Sydney.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Depends on the fate of Category:Sportswomen from Sydney. These two should really be considered as a group nom. --Qetuth (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2013 (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: merge to match the article name and avoid duplicate categories. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fellows of the Royal Entomological Society of London to Category:Fellows of the Royal Entomological Society

Nominator's rationale: They are the same organisation, but I'm unsure which is the preferable target category. Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed given the current article name (which reflects real world naming). Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge preferably as nom. I assume that there is no dab issue with the society name.

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.