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) 00:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bengali sportspersons to Category:Bengali sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Usual naming is sportspeople. Also note the contrast to Category:Sportspeople from West Bengal. SFB 19:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Basketball games in which Michael Jordan played (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There are no other basketball game categories by player, and I don't see that this is defining for such games. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep There are an unusual number of notable games in which this person played, much moreso than with most other basketball players. That was why I created the category. In fact, there is a book about his "greatest" games, Michael Jordan's 50 Greatest Games by Bob Condor. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete – not defining for the game, and a bad idea. (And don't upmerge; dumping articles with some vague connection with Jordan into Category:Michael Jordan is even worse.) Oculi (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment you would want to upmerge most of these to the parent cat Category:Michael Jordan. Why does nobody ever consider upmerging? - Bossanoven (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per comments before and don't upmerge for the same reason. Possibly listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Don't upmerge - if anything, purge the MJ category of articles like David Falk. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete WP:OC#PERF -- That usually applies to actors and TV persons, but there is no reason for it notto apply here too. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Agree with Peterkingiron. This would just lead to overcategorization of a such articles of notable games (particularly championship and All-Star games) by putting similar categories by every player who played in them. Upmerging doesn't resolve the problem of overcategorization. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete without upmerge. The potential for category bloat, as similar categories are created for every basketball player who ever played in more than one notable game, is too extreme. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete No reason to start this trend for athletes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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: KKeep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Napa Valley College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only has one entry, for the college itself, plus one subcategory. ...William 18:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment -- May we not need an alumni category too? possibly one for staff too. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I just added Category:Napa Valley College alumni - why delete when we can develop this instead? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The consensus seems to be to keep college categories if there are any subcategories. We also now have two articles directly in the college category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:False pipefish to Category:Solenostomus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be renamed "Solenostomus" because the animals have several common names, and the primary page has been renamed as the genus name. Mr Fink (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support category name should match primary page title. I was about to manually recategorize these until I came across the CfD notice. Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Winners of European Car of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Winners of Canadian Car of the Year
• Propose deleting Category:Winners of Car of the Year Japan
• Propose deleting Category:Winners of Indian Car of the Year

Nominator's rationale: Having won one of these awards is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a car model (e.g. Fiat Uno). See also WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There are lists at European_Car_of_the_Year#Results, Canadian Car of the Year, Car_of_the_Year_Japan#Recipients_of_the_award and Indian_Car_of_the_Year#Winners. DexDor (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete -- yet another unnecessary awards category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 the first, no consensus on others. – Fayenatic London 16:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ancient Roman provinces in Africa‎ to Category:Provinces of Roman North Africa
• Propose renaming Category:Roman provinces in Anatolia‎ to Category:Provinces of Roman Anatolia
• Propose renaming Category:Roman provinces in Hispania‎ to Category:Provinces of Hispania

Nominator's rationale: All the same format as Category:Provinces of Roman Gaul. Note that for Hispania the adjective Roman is not necessary, since Hispania is a Roman term as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep -- The change from Africa to North Africa perhaps makes little difference since there were no sub-Sahara Roman provinces, but having history of North Africa as a parent to the present name is unobjectionable. The Romans called it Hispania before their conquest of it. Furthermore, the modern Latin name for Spain is still Hispania, so that the target would cover the provinces of Vandal Spain (and other periods). For Anatolia, I do not see the reason to change. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support first oppose the other two. Anatolia and Hispania are broad terms, so the Provinces of Hispania category will not work at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Johnpacklambert: Probably you would support the second nomination as well, wouldn't you, as it still contains "Roman" in the category name? For the third one, can we reach consensus on the alternative Category:Provinces of Roman Hispania? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The Moon in film to Category:Moon in film

Nominator's rationale: Opposed at CFDS because of this Cfd, the previous Cfd never really addressed the difference between this name and the parent category, Category:Moon in fiction, except that it "more closely matches the naming of its parent." Well, close but no cigar. Rename per WP:THE, and to match category structure Category:Moon and such siblings as Category:Moon in art and main article, Moon. There's no reason whatsoever for the film category to differ and the closing of the 2012 Cfd was a poor one, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment it would be in line with the quoted discussion to rename in the opposite way, namely Category:Moon in fiction to Category:The Moon in fiction, because "the" moon is something else than "any" moon. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree with you that it needs to be consistent. But again the main article doesn't use a The, and there is the matter of Category:Moon in art, as well. So let's have common sense and consistency, one or another, at long last, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh, forgot to add: I do disagree rather strongly with "any moon" argument. I believe the reason why our main article and category is simply "Moon" is because there isn't any real confusion at all: Category:Moon is a subcat Category:Moons for that very reason. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • That's what I considered too, that's why I just gave it as a comment, not as an oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per the rest of the category tree and the article. In principle, I'm not opposed to a move to "the Moon", but I'd like that to be a move that unifies the tree and the main article, not one that applies names inconsistently. SFB 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete whether or not the Moon is featured in a film - whether documentary, SciFi or Werewolf or Romantically is just a mish-mash of coincidence and trivia; what reliable sources will be guiding the placement or not of articles into this category, or are we just going to do it subjectively with our own WP:Original research.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Slope landforms of Wales to Category:Landforms of Wales
• Propose merging Category:Slope landforms of Denbighshire to Category:Landforms of Denbighshire
• Propose merging Category:Slope landforms of Gwynedd to Category:Landforms of Gwynedd
• Propose merging Category:Slope landforms of Powys to Category:Landforms of Powys
• Propose merging Category:Slope landforms of Rhondda Cynon Taf to Category:Landforms of Rhondda Cynon Taf
• Propose deleting Category:Slope landforms of the United Kingdom (empty after above merges)

Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary layer of categorization (grouping together cliffs and quarries). This is the only "Slope landforms of <country>" category. Note: slope landform is currently a redlink. DexDor (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support deletion and upmerge. Similar to "Aeolian landforms..." below, this is an unnecessary and esoteric subcategorisation with insufficient articles to justify it. Sionk (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge all county/county borough categories (including targets such as Category:Landforms of Denbighshire) to the appropriate geography category, such as Category:Geography of Denbighshire. Someone has been undertaking far too much fragmentation of Welsh geographic categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• merge and delete per nom This will make these categories match the rest of the landform categories for countries and sub-country areas Hmains (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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:Lists about Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia-related lists to Category:Wikipedia (and Category:21st century-related lists)

Nominator's rationale: The name of the category makes it look like a wikipedia administration category (like Category:Wikipedia-related projects), but the parent categories are for encyclopedia articles. We normally categorize wp admin pages and articles separately. Note: I've removed pages like Wikipedia:Celebrities who have been quoted as having used Wikipedia from this category; it currently only contains 2 pages. DexDor (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...or rename as proposed below (note: the category now has 4 members). DexDor (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: An "unauthorised" modification was made to the nomination on 16th Feb[1]. It's now been repaired. DexDor (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• CommentSupport renaming to Category:Lists about Wikipedia - It does look like "Category:Wikipedia-related" does otherwise precede administrative categories, though I don't know how consistent administrative vs. article Wikipedia-related categories are. Would renaming it to Category:Lists about Wikipedia be a better solution? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support rename to Category:Lists about Wikipedia as an easily understood solution, per Rhododendrites above. SFB 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I don't understand this nomination -- Lists are not articles see:Wikipedia:Lists. There is a whole separate category see: Category:Lists. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encyclopedic lists (i.e. excluding lists that are part of Wikipedia administration) are categorized under Category:Articles - e.g. Category:NASA lists is under Category:NASA. The page you linked to is a disambiguation page. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DexDor: Sorry, I don't understand how the things you wrote above are relevant. Are you saying Category talk:Wikipedia-related lists should not have a banner for wp:WikiProject Lists? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC) In your example above you say Category:NASA lists is under Category:NASA, which is true, but it also a child of Category:Lists by organization and should never be merged into Category:NASA. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rationale is that this appears to be the only category beginning with "Category:Wikipedia-related ____" that's populated by articles and lists as opposed to administrative categories and the like (templates, wikipedia namespace, etc.) To me, a simple rename fixes it rather than splitting it in two. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am only seeing 4 list-articles in Category:Wikipedia-related lists and all of them are clearly lists:

• Bibliography of Wikipedia
• List of films about Wikipedia
• List of Wikipedia controversies
• List of Wikipedia mobile applications

What am I missing? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the problem (and, to be clear, it's not a huge problem). Similarly named categories are administrative whereas this one is based on article subject. e.g. Category:Wikipedia-related projects, Category:Wikipedia-related user templates. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to Ottawahitec's question raised earlier: it's up to WikiProject Lists to decide whether (categories of) wikipedia administration lists are within the scope of their project or not. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. DexDor (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Classical topography to Category:Topography

Nominator's rationale: Seemingly redundant categorization layer, it only contains a single child category. It doesn't require upmerging to Category:Classical studies because the content of this category is in the tree of Category:Classical studies already. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting

Category:Aeolian landforms of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Anglesey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Ceredigion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Gwynedd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of Snowdonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aeolian landforms of the Vale of Glamorgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's no reason to create this category tree, which here is effectively a duplication of the Category:Dunes of the United Kingdom series. There are no other "Aeolian landforms of FOOland" series. Sionk (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – this whole subtree contains 5 articles, namely the 5 dunes in Wales discussed below. Oculi (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete no content except dunes which is dealt in a separate CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• support per nom so these will match the rest of the landform category structure. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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: upmerge each to Category:Dunes of Wales and the appropriate "Geography of FOO" category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting

Category:Dunes of Anglesey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of Ceredigion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of Gwynedd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of Snowdonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dunes of the Vale of Glamorgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge content to Category:Dunes of Wales. Unnecessary subcategorisation by a serial over-categoriser which is not carried out for England or Scotland. Sionk (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – each category has 1 article. Oculi (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Upmerge all to Category:Dunes of Wales and the relevant "geography of" category. There has been too much splitting of Welsh geographic categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• support per nom; no pressing need for such tiny subcats Hmains (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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.