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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging: Category:Bishops of Apt‎ to Category:French bishops
• Propose upmerging: Category:Bishops of Die‎ to Category:French bishops
• Propose upmerging: Category:Bishops of Dié‎ to Category:French bishops
• Propose upmerging: Category:Bishops of Maillezais‎ to Category:French bishops

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't agree that WP:SMALLCAT applies here, as these are all (a) part of a larger category scheme ad (b) open to growth by the addition of further articles (for example, there were over 60 bishops of Apt). Jsmith1000 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I sincerely hope you are right about the growth potential but I have my doubts. These towns are small so the chance that someone takes the effort to write an article is probably proportionally small and the fact that currently there is only one article in each of these categories doesn't promise too much. About the established tree, I would expect that this argument doesn't count if it's parented to only one category in an established tree (like bishops in this case), otherwise it would never be possible to nominate something because of WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Upmerge All per WP:NARROWCAT with no objection to recreating later if Jsmith1000 is correct and more articles appear. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, assuming thsat these are sees that subsisted for a long period. I suspect that the problem is that the English WP has poor biographical coverage of French biographies. The articles of English dioceses have long lists of articles, most of which have blue links and hence a category of this type. We need to Populate. However Die and Dié‎ are probably duplicates and should be merged to Dié‎, leaving a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No the two places are different, Dié is actually Saint-Dié. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a request to populate is only applicable if there is reason to believe that articles exist which should be parented to this category but aren't parented yet. If there aren't any articles at all and - as said earlier - if the chance that there will be articles written is also small then we should just act according to WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:50, 25 October 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging: Category:French priests to Category:French Roman Catholic priests

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains Roman Catholic priests. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (procedural). It would be better for someone (i.e. the nominator) to check each article in this category and (if appropriate) move the article down to the RC category - then consider deleting this category if it's an unnecessary layer. DexDor (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have checked the articles, if a denomination is mentioned, it's always Roman Catholic. Not always is Roman Catholic mentioned, but that obviously has to do with the fact that other denominations are very small minorities in France (4% identified as Muslim, 3% identified as Protestant, 1% identified as Buddhist, 1% identified as Jewish) and in neither of these minority denominations there are priests. So, within the French context, Roman Catholic isn't a differentiating characteristic of priest, but worldwide it is. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think it's better for you to move the articles to the more specific category - for one thing, what if an article (for a non-RC priest) is added to the category before the CFD is closed? DexDor (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that the same issue with any merge proposal? This would imply we could no longer propose any merge nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite. E.g. if we have a Barbers category and a Barbers of Fooland category then an article about a particular barber of Fooland belongs in the more specific category until that category is deleted (e.g. by being upmerged). In this case, if the articles belong in the more specific (RC) category they can/should be moved now. DexDor (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is part of an established tree structure. It has potential to grow (e.g. French Eastern Orthodox priests, French defrocked priests). Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. If there was a category:French Eastern Orthodox priests, its parent along with French RC priests should include the word Christian, i.e. Category:French Christian religious leaders. To collate just those branches of religions which use the word "priests" is over-categorization, see WP:SHAREDNAME. IMHO this overrides the established tree, and most of Category:Priests by nationality is an unnecessary layer which can be removed without harm. It remains possible that editors would use the category again in good faith, so after merging I would have no objection to re-creating it as a redirect to Category:French religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That logic depends on the fallacy that the terms "French Christian Roman Catholic priests" / "French Christian Eastern Orthodox priests" are necessary. Since all RC and EO people are Christian, then the addition of Christian to the name is entirely unnecessary. While the RC and EO religions both have clerics called priests, I don't think that either would agree that there is an equivalence between them. A RC priest is not equivalent to an EO priest, though both are subsets of "Christian priests". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is suggesting the addition of "Christian" to category names for RC or EO. My point was about their immediate parent category. Category:Priests is sub-divided into Christian priests, Hindu priests etc. Category:French priests would include any notable French Hindu priests. It is more useful to navigate not between various religious divisions hat happen to use the word "priest", but between local leaders of Christian congregations. Category:French Christian religious leaders contains e.g. Category:French Calvinist and Reformed ministers alongside Category:French clergy, which contains Category:French priests. Both the latter are currently (mis-)used for Catholics alone, and should be merged or renamed accordingly. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, French priests includes Hindu priests, then why would you want to support its merger with Roman Catholic priests? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and next item. RC is the dominant religion in France. Other denominations usually use other terms, such as minister. I think the target should be Category:French Roman Catholic priests. Bishops, abbots etc will probably be in priestly orders, though abbés are only in minor orders. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 13 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:French clergy to Category:French Roman Catholic clergy

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains Roman Catholic clergy. Clergy from other denominations in France can be found in its parent Category:French Christian religious leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is part of an established tree structure. It has potential to grow (e.g. French bishops, French cardinals, French Imams). Create any necessary sub-categories for denominations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: That would make it into an unnecessary duplicate of Category:French religious leaders. As for imams, note that Category:Islamic clergy was merged & redirected to "religious leaders". – Fayenatic London 14:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: keeping as is would also leave an inconsistent naming within its parent Category:Roman Catholic clergy by nationality‎. While if you would solve that by removing this parenting, it would just leave a gap in the Roman Catholic clergy tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, then redirect the old name to Category:French religious leaders. For the wider hierarchy, I have set out a proposal at Category talk:Religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Fayenatic @Fayenatic london: I read the Category talk:Religious leaders article. While it is interesting and has many things that I could could support, it's not in a "good to go" condition. On the other hand, we have before us a cat that is part of a well-established Clergy by nationality tree. We can only vote on what's before us, not on what might be. Right now, this proposal must be defeated. Later, CFDs for all the by Clergy by nationality cats could be advanced. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair comment. The articles should still go down into a more specific category, though. Is there a difference in scope between the proposed Category:French Roman Catholic clergy and the existing Category:French Roman Catholic priests? – Fayenatic London 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Priests are a subset of clergy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what is the difference? Who would go in "Roman Catholic clergy" who are not RC priests? Bishops are also priests. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are 3 orders of clergy in the RC church: deacons, priests, bishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Laurel Lodged: Thanks. Would ordination as a deacon be a wp:DEFINING characteristic? Category:Roman Catholic deacons is a small category; should it be kept at all? E.g. it has Charles Erskine (cardinal) who was a cardinal deacon – he was notable for being a cardinal, not for being a deacon. My point is that people should only be categorised as clergy if they are priests or bishops, and bishops are a sub-category of priests, therefore we don't need categories for both priests and clergy. There was a similar discussion here about Baptist deacons, and another here about assistant roles among Pentecostal clergy. In both cases we renamed the categories from "clergy" to the more defining roles of "ministers"/"pastors". – Fayenatic London 07:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:French Roman Catholic priests and purge of any that do not belong, which should go inot a higher level category. We may need a "French RC clergy in minor orders" to cover those who never progressed beyond deacon. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In saying "purge of any that do not belong", did you have in mind Protestant or Eastern Orthodox clergy? If so, where would they go? Into a higher level category? What would be the name of such a category - Category:French clergy perhaps? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest they would go in Category:French Christian religious leaders.
    • @Peterkingiron: do you think being in minor orders is defining? I doubt it; so only the RC category for priests is needed. – Fayenatic London 02:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to what would Category:French Christian religious leaders report if not Category:French clergy ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Laurel Lodged: That one is (rightly) a sub-cat of Category:French religious leaders, Category:French Christians and Category:Christian religious leaders by nationality. Where both exist, "clergy" categories are currently sub-cats of the corresponding "religious leaders" categories. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not think minor orders to be defining in itself, but it may be worth having a category for those notable for other reasons: I was merely suggesting that persons in minor orders who were in the clergy category might need to be put elsaewhere. In referring to "any not belonging", I was indeed thinking of other denominations; perhaps also other religions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but purge daughter cats that don't fit, like the Anglican one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Taken care of. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:10, 28 October 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 "races" to "runs", to bring conformity with article names. Not quite a strong enough consensus here to override the article name and rename "K" to "km"—it could be the subject of a new rename proposal, though, if users want to pursue it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:10K races to Category:10K runs
• Propose renaming Category:10K races in the United States to Category:10K runs in the United States
• Propose renaming Category:5K races to Category:5K runs
• Propose renaming Category:5K races in the United States to Category:5K runs in the United States

Nominator's rationale: The current name doesn't distinguish what types of 10K race these are (e.g. running? cycling? swimming? car racing?). The current main page for the topic is 10K run and renaming based on this clearly distinguishes the topic matter. Same applies for 5K run. SFB 19:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These should all be called 10km or 5km ; "K" is bad slang to be using. (use km instead of kilometre because of kilometer) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format "10K" was chosen as this is the common name for the event, not because it is the most accurate written form of expressing a distance of ten kilometres. SFB 19:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP has a point; some (actually not that many - based on the wp article titles) of these races have "10K" in their name, but we don't categorize by characteristics of names; we categorize by what things are. E.g. an article saying "The Tufts Health Plan 10K for Women is a ... 10 kilometer ..." fits a "10km" category better than a "10K" category. "10km" is also used [1]. However, I don't mind either form. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all to Category:10km races etc. Yes some are mass participation events, where taking part is more important than winning, but in many cases there is a race to win. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 13 October 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 to Category:Lithuanian national athletics champions (see related discussion immediately below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lithuanian Athletics Champions to Category:Lithuanian athletics national champions

Nominator's rationale: The current title has unusual capitalisation and does not easily convey that the "champion" aspect relates to national level, and not international, competition. SFB 18:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. I support. Jared Preston (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bearas (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:Lithuanian national athletics champions. Note that the original name follows the main article Lithuanian Athletics Championships, but I do not think this should determine the category name for champions. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 20 October 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 to Category:German national athletics champions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:German Athletics Champions to Category:German athletics national champions

Nominator's rationale: The current title has unusual capitalisation and does not easily convey that the "champion" aspect relates to national level, and not international, competition. SFB 18:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. I support. Jared Preston (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:German national athletics champions. Note that the original name follows the main article German Athletics Championships, but I do not think this should determine the category name for champions. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support that. SFB 22:22, 20 October 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: merge, although it is currently empty. This close is authority for speedy merging of the other regional sub-cats within Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. Note that the one for Calabria will need a double upmerge as there is also a regional parent Category:People of Calabrian descent. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dominican Republic people of Lazian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: For a start, when I saw this category, I thought to myself "huh?". Upon closer inspection, I presume "Lazian" means "of or pertaining to Lazio". I am not so familiar with Italian geography, but that is beside the point. I don't know why Dominican Republic people should be categorised by Italian-region descent, when Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent is fully sufficient. Nice idea, in a way, but where does this stop? "Botswanan people of Westphalian descent"? I propose that this category be deleted; whether this is a WP:SMALLCAT-issue or other WP:OVERCAT topic, I am not sure, but I believe there should be some discussion, somewhere, if such categories are going to be created in the future. Jared Preston (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete per nom and a definite case of WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and others (e.g. Category:Dominican Republic people of Apulian descent). In fact the whole of the "descent" tree should go as the nationality/ethnicity of someone's great^n-grandparents is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. Except where there are separate ethnicities, we should not need to split this beyond country of origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 13 October 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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Protestant religious leaders by denomination to Category:Protestant clergy by denomination

Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it more clear that this category is open for all protestant clergy. Consistent naming with its brother category Category:Protestant clergy by period and consistent with many of its child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as content matches proposed title. No opposition to recreation as a leaders only cat if that is required in future. SFB 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose as leaders in many Protestant denominations do not use the word "clergy". See Category_talk:Religious_leaders#Clergy_categories for links to precedents, and for my long-term proposal to rationalise these categories. – Fayenatic London 05:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point. At the same time 'religious leader' isn't a very clear term. I would understand 'religious leader' as (only) popes, bishops and chairs of Protestant churches at national or international level, so as a subset of clergy and ministers. Meanwhile I noticed in Category:Christian religious leaders that other editors think that lay people and self-nominated leaders can also be Christian leaders, so then clergy and ministers would become a subset of leaders, the other way around. Is there any better alternative than using the term 'leader'? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Religious leaders" means not only national (etc) leaders, but those who lead local congregations. It is the umbrella term covering Jewish rabbis, Muslim imams and Hindu priests. Here is the discussion that led to Category:Protestant clergy by denomination being merged with "ministers" to the current name "religious leaders". – Fayenatic London 13:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a question. I understand that Protestant ministers would not normally refer to themselves as 'clergy'. But would they also really oppose the use of 'clergy' as an umbrella term for clergy and ministers together (for example, when used this way in the media, or by the government)? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not; "clergy" would be understood as an external label. (There would be more objections to the word "priests".) However, going back to "clergy" would be a reversal of various renames over the last two years. If this nomination is rejected, I will propose a merge & redirect of the 2013 creation Category:Protestant clergy to Category:Protestant religious leaders, and renaming of Category:Protestant clergy by period and its century sub-cats to "religious leaders". – Fayenatic London 13:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: please note that my initial understanding of leadership was also based on the limited contents of Category:Protestant religious leaders‎. Probably, with the proposal that you have in mind, the contents of this particular category will (need to) change. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw proposal as I see the merit of using correct names for ecclesiastical titles and occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 4 October 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. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Heronries in Britain to Category:Heronries in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Renaming from Britain to UK better fits the parent category and by-country categorization. Alternatively, upmerge the (currently 3) articles to Category:Herons and Category:Birds in the United Kingdom. DexDor (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Birds do not recognise political/administrative boundaries so this should (if anything) be a rename to Category:Heronries in Great Britain. St George's Channel presumably acts as a barrier so this sub-category should exclude Northern Ireland and Ireland. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the category Category:Bird sanctuaries by country has been subdivided by country, so a UK category seems to be perfectly alright. Question: could it be a better alternative to have the nominated category join into this Bird sanctuaries category, by renaming it into Category:Bird sanctuaries of the United Kingdom? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation of a sanctuary is that it is some form of 'legal' reserve i.e. imposed by man. The Severn Wildfowl Trust is the one that springs to mind. I agree that that one should be in Category:Bird sanctuaries of the United Kingdom. A heronry is different. It is a natural roost (for herons) and should be in a natural landmass category not an administrative one. The obvious landmasses here are Great Britain, or the British Isles. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We categorize many fixed individual natural objects (mountains, rivers etc) by which country/ies they are in. If we categorized natural objects in natural regions and man-made objects in countries then we'd be categorizing lakes in Water-bodies-of-the-British-Isles and categorizing reservoirs in Water-bodies-of-the-United-Kingdom which would not be helpful. Also, in much of the world it would be difficult/impossible to decide what regions to use and where exactly the boundaries are. Categorizing by country isn't perfect (e.g. articles about the Falkland Islands are currently, via UK cats, in Category:Geography of Europe), but afaics it's the best practical scheme. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree entirely that there is a large grey area between mad-made and natural. I agree with you that categories are not perfect although I think water features was a bad example as they do not move; birds fly. I am quite happy to rename to Category:Heronries in Great Britain as Great Britain is both a landmass; and lies within the UK. I am not happy with Category:Heronries in the United Kingdom as that implies that the heron will somehow respect the boundary with ROI. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would the fact that birds fly be relevant? A heronry is (normally/always) a group of trees and it doesn't move much. DexDor (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A heronry is more to do with the group of birds that roost there; and they do move. On reflection I think I am probably being too pedantic on this category so will change my vote to rename. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Opposing this nom would suggest that we should have an all-Ireland category, but we have normally resisted having all-Ireland categories, except where things are organised on an all-Ireland basis, as with Trades Unions and horse-racing. Any protected heronries in NI will be protected by British or NI law, not Irish law, so that there is some merit in a UK category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 13 October 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. – Fayenatic London 17:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Geography of Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Note that its single child category Category:Kingdoms and countries of Austria-Hungary is already parented to Category:History of Austria-Hungary which is a better way of parenting than to Geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 27 September 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 07:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:DC Animated Film Universe to Category:DC Universe Animated Original Movies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is only one article on the category, and doesn't seems like other users are using it, since they do not add Justice League: Throne of Atlantis to it. NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:38, 27 September 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging: Category:German prelates to Category:Prelates
• Propose merging: Category:Italian prelates to Category:Prelates
• Propose merging: Category:Slovenian prelates to Category:Prelates

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Note: if the nomination is granted, Category:Prelates by nationality becomes obsolete and can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's not clear if the term "prelate" is being used in a consistent way across these categories. The article prelate suggests quite a varied usage, making such a categorisation not very definitive (i.e. contents may not especially share characteristics any more than other clergy categories would). SFB 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're actually right, that might even be a reason to delete this prelates tree, or not? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the entire tree structure I see no real difference between prelateand bishop. In the Lutheran church, the two are synonymous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as WP:OCAT by shared name. The pages are all in suitable specific categories by nationality e.g. Roman Catholic bishops, so no merger is required. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a follow-up I have nominated Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_3#Category:Prelates. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if I remember the background to these cats correctly, the idea when they were created 10 years ago was to have something that included not only bishops but also abbots, Papal legates and other highranking clergy (there were far fewer such articles then). The cat structure has developed since to allow for them to be deslt with separately, so the "Prelates" cats are probably now obsolete. Jsmith1000 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Distribute the contents manually then fell the whole tree. "Prelate" is a soemwhat vague term, similar to "bishop", but possibly including mitred abbots. I suspect that Papal legates will come into one of these categories, or they have have theri own one. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 13 October 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. – Fayenatic London 17:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Latin American leaders ousted by the United Fruit Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unless someone can find a suitable place in the categorization scheme for this to fit - e.g. Category:Leaders ousted by the United Fruit Company by continent or Category:Latin American leaders by ousting company. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would expect there to be a category like Category:USA involvement in Latin American politics in which these articles could fit, but I can't find anything like that yet. It could be created as a new category, I guess there should be sufficient potential to populate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The closest I've found is Category:CIA activities in the Americas. I don't think it's necessary to create a new category as these are articles about people (not events) and they are in categories such as president-of-x. DexDor (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This nuanced concept is better dealt with in text, rather than a highly specific and small category. SFB 20:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but we need some coverage of this subject more prominent than there is currently in United Fruit Company. The thought of a commerical company entering the realm of poilitics at this level is extraordinary. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 13 October 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.