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 all. (NAC)Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Moths of Bolivia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Moths of South America and Category:Fauna of Bolivia
  
• Propose upmerging as follows:
  

Nominator's rationale: These are all mainland countries and consensus has been that moths etc pay no attention to land borders. (Eg Spiders in Europe cfd, March 2014.) I am not necessarily in favour of Fauna by country but past attempts to upmerge such as this one in 2008 have been inconclusive. Oculi (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Support All Grouping animals by political boundaries creates category clutter for animals with a wide range. Take a look at the bottom of Haemonides cronis to see what I mean {or pick your own examples from these categories}. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above reason which mirrors my own previous statements. I also agree that Fauna by country needs to be reassessed. I 100% agree that "animals by country" is useful information, but this is much better presented in a list format, not a category one. Arguably readers will want to see all a country's fauna presented – not just ones specific to it – so categorises are by design poor at this (unless we want to give things like Brown rat 200+ categories). SFB 22:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Dividing animals by country goes too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2014 (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: reverse merge. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:County sheriffs in the United States to Category:American sheriffs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Complete duplicate category which looks like it was created by an editor who didn't realise that the other category had already existed for nine years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge We should be able to distinguish between after 1776 and before 1776. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. For the life of me I don't see why the opposite is proposed. They are generally county sheriffs, so why not call them what they are? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either is fine by me. Although remember that Louisiana doesn't have counties! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge They are officers of the counties Hmains (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2014 (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; merge contents to Category:American singer-songwriters; Category:American pop singers; Category:American rock singers; and Category:American rock songwriters as appropriate (will be listed at WP:CFDWM for multiple target merging). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting:

• Category:American pop singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:American rock singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Added on 14 November:

• Category:Rock singer-songwriters by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC: How should music BLPs approach the term "singer-songwriter"?, these category goes against the definition of singer-songwriter. The term is used specifically to describe folk/acoustic singers such as James Taylor and Joni Mitchell. Therefore, the categories and any subcategories should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge the first and second respectively to Category:American pop singers / both Category:American rock singers and Category:American rock songwriters; delete Category:Rock singer-songwriters by nationality (added to nomination today, as it will be emptied by deletion of the American cat). – Fayenatic London 17:56, 14 November 2014 (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 nom. Note that there already exist UK sub-cats such as Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the United Kingdom. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Use of country name as with other country categories within Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It may look wrong, but the reason for this is that the RC Church in Ireland covers the whole of the island of Ireland, both the Republic of Ireland (which is an independent country) and Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom). There is no separate Northern Ireland RC hierarchy. The current categorisation is therefore correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that this matters. It merely means that dioceses in Northern Ireland can be parented to both Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. And this double categorization of Northern Ireland categories is common practice in Wikipedia already. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in favor of the nomination: please also note that the main article is Roman Catholicism in the United Kingdom, there's no main article with Great Britain in the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we use geography breakdowns based on real geography, not geography as defined by various organizations. If an organization defines a region as "EMEA" Europe, Middle East, Africa (or Asia), we don't put their offices, misadventures, etc. into such a category. We divvy them up per WP's view of geography, not the categorant's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- We should follow the organisation adopted bhy the church. This is organsised on an all-Ireland basis, so that a GB category might be appropriate. However, the church is organised separately in Scotland too, so that the Scotland category should be directly in the Europoean one. I am not clear how it is organised in England and Wales - together or separate. We should not be imposing a WP-geography on what the real world does. We do not generally allow all Ireland categories, but we do allow them when things are orgaised on that basis. wher that applies we should have a GB category, though I see reasons for not doing so in this case. Peterkingiron (talk)

• Don't agree with this type of reasoning. Different denominations may well have a different geographical organization, for categorization we cannot follow every denomination separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Over time, I've changed my view on this. I now support the double parentage position. It's up to the main article to explain the RC church's geographic world view. In the case of Ireland, it's the usual triple parentage (ROI, NI, I). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (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 without prejudice to re-creation if in future more than one country has a category of 17th-century church buildings. See search.

• Propose deleting Category:17th-century church buildings by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like an extra navigation layer that is not needed for navigation. Only content seems to be adequately categorized. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and not aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this is part of a series, although they were not previously linked, and Category:19th-century church buildings by country is the only sizeable one. If the nominated cat is deleted, then its only member Category:17th-century church buildings in Sweden might as well be nominated next for upmerging to Category:17th century in Sweden. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge this and all siblings to the by country and by century parents (only). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: please tag and list here any siblings that you want to be considered as part of this close. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 19 November 2014 (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.