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. MER-C 11:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That a university/college is a member of this organization is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the university/college. E.g. many of the articles make no mention of the organization in the article text (e.g. Selkirk College, University_of_Arizona). This category could be listified (e.g. to Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration or to a separate list page), but IMO it would be better to generate such a list from a WP:RS. For info: This is one of a series of CFDs for similar categories (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_23#Category:Associated_Colleges_of_the_Midwest). DexDor ^(talk) 22:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We have deleted numerous categorisation by association membership among univerities. No objection to listifying them in main article. This is a case of categoriy clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; not defining. (Note, of course, that not all consortium membership is non-defining. AAU membership, for example, is defining, and we properly have a category for it). Neutrality^talk 05:17, 22 April 2015 (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/delete as specified. MER-C 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories,see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merge Category:1648 BC births to Category:17th-century BC births
• Propose merge Category:1601 BC deaths to Category:17th-century BC deaths
• Propose merge Category:1646 BC deaths to Category:17th-century BC deaths
• Propose merge Category:1600 BC establishments to Category:16th-century BC establishments
• Propose merge Category:States and territories established in 1600 BC‎ to Category:States and territories established in the 16th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1600s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1610s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1620s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1630s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1640s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1650s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1660s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1670s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1680s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1690s BC to Category:17th century BC
• Propose merge Category:1600 BC to Category:16th century BC
• Propose delete Category:1600s BC deaths
• Propose delete Category:1600s BC establishments
• Propose delete Category:States and territories established in the 1600s BC
• Propose delete Category:1640s BC deaths
• Propose delete Category:1640s BC births
• Propose delete Category:1601 BC
• Propose delete Category:1646 BC
• Propose delete Category:1648 BC

Nominator's rationale: merge the first 16 categories per WP:SMALLCAT, each of these categories contains one article. After merging, the other categories become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that the exact year 1600 should probably be merged to the 16th rather than the 17th century. For the one article in this category, the exact year is uncertain anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support generally -- The Shang dynasty was established in c.1600 BC. It is better to treat it for century purposes as 1599 than 1601. There is not enough content at such remote periods to warrant annual and decade categories. The many layers are a hindrance, not a help to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge'; hyper-specification at such early dates impedes rather than promotes navigation. Neutrality^talk 05:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Such narrow divisions are not helping navigation of related material. SFB 18:32, 26 April 2015 (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. MER-C 12:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Unclear inclusion criteria. Tim! (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Cricket. We do not have categories for "sundry" bits & pieces, but move the contents up to the parent in such cases. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Cricket, the only parent. I assume that someone created this to avoid having articles in a container category, but that would be a mistaken policy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (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 wherever the members came from. MER-C 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Religion and mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Religion and mythology by culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:African religion and mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Asian religion and mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:European religion and mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Oceanian religion and mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Religion and mythology of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. There is nothing in these categories that is specifically about the relationship between religion and mythology. There's just a random selection taken from the mythology tree on the one hand and a random selection taken from the religion tree on the other hand. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also this earlier discussion which has meanwhile been closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per discussion below the nomination to delete should be interpreted as a nomination to manually merge, then delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all The first only has as direct member a few random Semitic religious notions; the second adds a category of deities to the mix. All the rest just contain the corresponding religion category. I don't see how this is the least bit useful. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and manual merge back to the categories that articles were moved from, e.g. [1] [2]. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually merge/delete -- most have only a mythology child. Africa's maniun article is African traditional religion, which suggests renaming to that. That leaves "by culture" (with little else). Perhaps, we should keep the ultimate parent, at least for now until we can see the results of sorting the rest out. Some of the mythology children are very well populated, so that the probelm concerns proper parenting of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support manual merge back obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. Unfortunately, merging back is not obvious; a "delete" decision is normally passed to a bot which simply edits pages that are currently in the category, and removes it. That is why "merge" and "delete" are different outcomes, and care is needed when nominating and !voting. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken, I added a comment accompanying the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (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. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cricket by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. The category adds no value and it is a case of creating one for the sake of it. Is the author ever going to apply it to more than two cities only? No use to the cricket project. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now contains 13 subcategories. Several other sports have a similar tree: Category:Association football by city, Category:American football by city, Category:Baseball by city, Category:Basketball by city and Category:Ice hockey by city. Tim! (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Tim!'s note.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Indian cricket is organised by city. English by county. Is this really a useful tree? A "by city in India" category might be useful, but London and Bristol are essentially random cases of county teams based in a city - for London, both Midldesex and Surrey. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename into Category:Cricket by city in India per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2015 (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: speedy delete, WP:SNOW. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Men who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of a marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This fits right into WP:TRIVIALCAT, along with redheads and bald people. Nymf (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Category:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage (redirect). BTW: all these cats are empty. Quis separabit? 18:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Otherwise, I look forward to, "Redheaded people who are now bald". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The topic identity is a big thing for women when they get married. I would like to hear some more female Wikipedian editor's views as to whether this cat should stay or go. GregKaye 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 1) ungodly clunky, 2) surname choice is not a defining characteristic, 3) an exercise in point-making, as this stems from the bordering-on-tendentious discussion about a move request at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a WP:NONDEFINING category. The titles are also ridiculously long and not exactly neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously a silly WP:POINTY - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- in addition to all the reasons above, I must add that it is one of the stupidest categories I have heard of. Quis separabit? 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-defining with a ridiculously long name. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy snow delete - per all the above, time to cut the drama. Kraxler (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally absurd category, created only to make a point, and confirming to this female Wikipedian that the debate the category creator is prolonging regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton is not at all based on any concern for the encyclopedia, but motivated by something else. And don't tell me to AGF on this one. Tvoz/talk 23:59, 20 April 2015 (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. MER-C 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:6 Metre Sailing to Category:6 Metre (keelboat)
• Propose renaming Category:8 Metre Sailing to Category:8 Metre (keelboat)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid ambiguity. I have only just moved the main article to 6 Metre (keelboat), so this is not eligible for speedy renaming as C2D. Maybe C2C after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_10#Sailing_by_class? – Fayenatic London 14:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved 8 Metre (keelboat) to 8 Metre since it didn't need any disambiguation so the category should go to Category:8 Metre instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartskaft (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 April 2015‎; comment moved from Speedy page.
  • Nevertheless, even if it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "8 Metre" is a very generic name for a category, and I believe disambiguation would be desirable. – Fayenatic London 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated per Fayenatic ; overly ambiguously named categories tend to collect unrelated junk making their utility questionable -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REname as nom. "8 metre" would be a bad name, as its connotation would be unclear. Why should we hve an article apparently on a random length. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (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. MER-C 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Windsurfing disciplines to Category:Windsurfing by class

Nominator's rationale: Rename following Category:Sailing by class, which is a better match for a pattern than the longer-standing parent Category:Sport disciplines. Alternatively, Category:Olympic windsurfing classes would follow Category:Olympic sailboat classes; all the 4 current member pages are Olympic classes. – Fayenatic London 14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support fits in line with the sport's definitions. SFB 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I have no idea what a "discipline" is supposed to be but the class breakout makes perfect sense. Mangoe (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2015 (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. MER-C 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Australian Olympians in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and unclear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There will eventually be 50 Australian Olympians added to this list. This is a work in progress.User:Aussiesportlibrarian

• Delete. "People who did X and at some other point in their lives did Y" is a bad form of categorization. If someone has been an Olympian and also notable for something else (e.g. as a TV presenter) then put them in both categories (and, if necessary in a combined category, but I'd prefer to see category intersection used for things like that). A "List of Australian Olympians who served in World War II" could also be considered. DexDor ^(talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (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. MER-C 12:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming from double L to single L:
• Propose renaming Category:Asian Games medallists for Bangladesh to Category:Asian Games medalists for Bangladesh
• Propose renaming Category:Asian Games gold medallists for Bangladesh to Category:Asian Games gold medalists for Bangladesh
• Propose renaming Category:Asian Games medallists for Pakistan to Category:Asian Games medalists for Pakistan
• Propose renaming Category:Asian Games gold medallists for Pakistan to Category:Asian Games gold medalists for Pakistan
• Propose renaming Category:Asian Games silver medallists for Pakistan to Category:Asian Games silver medalists for Pakistan
• Propose renaming Category:Asian Games silver medallists for Afghanistan to Category:Asian Games silver medalists for Afghanistan
• Propose renaming Category:Asian Games gold medallists for India to Category:Asian Games gold medalists for India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These category moves were previously proposed as speedy (C2C), but there were objections on WP:ENGVAR grounds. The proposal was deleted as stale after a couple of weeks. From what I can see in Category:Medalists at multi-sport events, "medalist" is spelled/spelt with a single L in every category but Category:Commonwealth Games medallists. There is clearly a WP:ENGVAR issue here. Does that mean that all countries are (or have been) part of the Commonwealth should have the double L? What about Britain's participation in the Olympics and Paralympics, and that of other Commonwealth nations? Should they be changed to double L? There's also inconsistent spelling within these categories: Pakistan's bronze category is spelled/spelt with single L, as is India's parent category. We need to bring the categories in line in some way. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Neutrality^talk 05:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support was meaning to do the same myself. I believe consistency in the Asian Games set is more desirable that consistency in the national set. SFB 18:34, 26 April 2015 (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. MER-C 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting: Mostly subjective category. Some of the songs are not even explained in their respective articles ("Do You Like Worms?", "Don't Drink the Water (Dave Matthews Band song)"), while others are ("Cortez the Killer"). The whole thing is plainly subjective. Quis separabit? 11:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Exterminate. It's POV and non-defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (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 the first 8, not the last two. There is no consensus for the last two to be moved. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Trees of Portugal to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Trees of Greece to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Trees of Italy to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Trees of Serbia to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Trees of Spain to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Trees of Metropolitan France to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Trees of France to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Trees of Ukraine to Category:Trees of Europe
• Propose renaming Category:Trees of the United Kingdom to Category:Trees in the United Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:Trees of Wales to Category:Trees of Europe

Nominator's rationale: That a tree species is found in a particular European country is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the species. See, for example, the pile-up of categories at Pinus nigra. The Acer opalus article says "native to the hills and mountains of southern and western Europe, from Italy to Spain and north to southern Germany" which suggests that it's also in countries such as France and Austria. In short, countries (in Europe) are too fine grained to be DEFINING characteristics of trees. DexDor ^(talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UK category contains articles that are about organisations etc (e.g. The Tree Register) that do belong in a UK category. See, for example, Category:Birds in the United Kingdom. DexDor ^(talk)

I'd also be happy with the UK/Wales categories being selectively upmerged to Category:Trees of Europe then merged/renamed/reparented to Category:Individual trees of the United Kingdom (see comments below). DexDor ^(talk) 20:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the first 8. Oppose rename of Category:Trees of the United Kingdom since the entire structure uses 'of', and no rationale is given. Category:Trees of Wales should be merged to Category:Trees of the United Kingdom. Oculi (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to the nomination. DexDor ^(talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support first 8 Land organisms should usually be grouped by island or continent (unless there is another defined ecosystem/barrier). Trees don't respect political boundariesRevelationDirect (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a note to the nomination. DexDor ^(talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on the last 2. I think the category names need clarification that they're not about tree species. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all including the UK category. The rationale for that one is that it contains articles about specific trees and tree-related organisations.– Fayenatic London 10:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all (except UK and Wales) -- All the rest are being used for species which occur in the country. We have for sometime been merging categories that are holding species that occur there, which for widespread species are WP:OC#PERF-type category clutter (occurence being the performance). The UK and Wales categories are different: they are being mainly used for specific named trees. With its low population of articles Wales might be merged to UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with @Peterkingiron re proposed Category:Trees of Wales to Category:Trees of Europe -- isn't Wales still in the UK? Quis separabit? 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the last 2, although they should be renamed to "Individual trees of location", since that's the true use of these categories; Support the rest as these categories are used for species by location on a single land-mass, and species don't recognize national bounderies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a split of the UK category to Category:Trees of Europe (for species), Category:Individual trees of the United Kingdom (within Category:Individual trees) and a parent Category:Trees in the United Kingdom for Future Trees Trust, The Tree Register and Trees for Cities? The Welsh category has only one non-species page Willow Globe Theatre, so should be merged. – Fayenatic London 12:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fayenatic -- This is an amplication of what I suggested. Possibly the three organisations might go into a category for tree and Woodland organsiations: Woodland Trust has the categories Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom Category:Conservation organisations based in the United Kingdom Category:Environmental charities based in the United Kingdom, though not all these will necessarily be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with an exception (or some other tweak) for the named trees in England & Wales - per Peterkingiron. Apart from named trees, there's no point in having separate categories for every country a tree grows in; if applied consistently this would leave most European tree species articles burdened with a long list of unnavigable categories, and each of those categories would have almost completely duplicated membership. bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support splitting living organisms on the national level is unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:R-type contracts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The only page in this category is already in Category:New York City Subway passenger equipment. This category has no parents. If kept tit should be renamed to make clear what it is about. DexDor ^(talk) 05:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a topic that requires navigation at this point. SFB 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Wildly confusingly-named, this is actually a category of all subway equipment built for the NYC Independent Subway System (IND) and for the combined system formed in the 1940 merger with the BMT and IRT. If a sub category of NYC subway equipment is needed, this is badly named, and the wrong way to divide things up in any case. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (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. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia Signpost Coverage of women to Category:Wikipedia Signpost coverage of women

Nominator's rationale: Merge to duplicate category with correct categorization. DexDor ^(talk) 05:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, Category:Wikipedia Signpost coverage of women (1 page) should be merged into Category:Wikipedia Signpost Coverage of women (27 pages). This is similar capitalization configuration to Category:Wikipedia Signpost Discussion report archives, Category:Wikipedia Signpost Featured content archives‎ and Category:Wikipedia Signpost Opinion content archives‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia Signpost" is a proper noun, "Wikipedia Signpost Coverage" (etc) isn't. DexDor ^(talk) 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per arguments presented by the nominator; Wikipedia Signpost coverage is proper.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (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. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Islamic Finance Scholar to Category:Scholars of Islamic banking

Nominator's rationale: More appropriate category name. Alternatives - "Promoters of Islamic banking", "Islamic banking experts" etc could be considered. DexDor ^(talk) 05:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Rename: per nominator rationale. Quis separabit? 15:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Category:Scholars of Islamic finance: Islamic finance is about a system of lending where the lender is given a share of the profits, rather than usurous interst. This thus concerns more than just banking. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the main articles are Islamic banking, and Islamic economic jurisprudence to which Islamic finance is a redirect. However, note that the second article's name is currently under discussion at Talk:Islamic_economic_jurisprudence#Requested_move_19_April_2015. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to conform with the main article name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2015 (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: speedy delete as empty and C2E. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Black Fraternal association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is incorrectly named and (currently) has no parents. There are existing categories such as Category:Ethnic fraternal orders in the United States. DexDor ^(talk) 05:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Since this nomination, I parented this category under Category:African-American professional organizations and Category:Firefighting in the United States. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African-American firefighting organizations to reflect the actual contents. This is well populated and a viable category despite the poor name. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Agree with this assesment CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC) [Category creator. -RD][reply]
• Delete:Rename to Category:African-American firefighting organizations as per @RevelationDirect rationale. Quis separabit? 15:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:C2E Author request. The newish editor took my suggestion, created the alternatively named category, and moved the content over. That isn't the normal sequence here but I favor rolling with that outcome if @DexDor: is willing to withdraw the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Afaik there's nothing preventing a category under discussion at CFD being CSDed if eligible; it's happened many times. I certainly would have no objection. DexDor ^(talk) 17:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty and useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: empty category anyway. Quis separabit? 18:19, 22 April 2015 (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.