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 12:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fauna of Bouvet Island to Category:Fauna of subantarctic islands

Nominator's rationale: That, for example Wilson's storm petrel is found on Bouvet Island is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that species. This category also places articles such as Macaroni penguin under Category:Fauna of Europe (via a Norway category). Note: There are lists in the text at Bouvet_Island#Nature. DexDor ^(talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- This suffers from the same objection that is leaving us to merge European biota cats. The problem is similar to that in WP:OC#PERF the performace being occurence. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:41, 9 July 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. Those who wrote in favor of deletion have the stronger, guideline-based arguments in these cases. Someone said, "Death is just as defining of an individual as their birth", but there are no categorization systems that distinguish, for instance, people born by caesarian or people born in a hospital. We don't even categorize by country or city of birth. (For those who claim that we do via categorization by nationality: Nationality is not always granted by birthright and it's not unusual for a person to be born as a non-national of the country they are born in.) Several other "keep" comments also appeared to confuse the principle of "definingness" with that of "notability". How a person died will probably almost always be notable and therefore will be mentioned in a biographical article, but that is not the equivalent of saying that it is defining for the person. Note that in closing this I considered the previous (or concurrent) discussions here and here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction‎
• Propose deleting Category:Deaths from stroke‎
• Propose deleting Category:Deaths from cerebral hemorrhage‎ (child cat of previous)
• Propose deleting Category:Deaths from cerebral softening‎‎ (child cat of previous)

Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of the earlier deletion of Category:Deaths from heart failure in this discussion. This is a conservative proposal, taking in mind that this other discussion ended as a trainwreck. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. See also WP:DNWAUC and my comments here. Note: Every article currently in these categories is also in Category:Births by year - i.e. they are all biographies rather than articles such as "Heart attack of John Smith". If kept and intended for biographies (rather than articles actually about deaths) then these categories should be renamed "People who died from...". DexDor ^(talk) 20:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as being defining to the individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects (see Help:Category). In an encyclopedia biographies of people who are notable for similar things are similar subjects. So, for example Cannonball Adderley and Pepper Adams are grouped together in Category:Hard bop saxophonists. It is quite possible that a reader interested in Adderley would also be interested in Adams and for an editor the articles may have similar infoboxes, use similar references etc. In contrast, a category like Category:Deaths from stroke contains an assortment of people a British politician, a Hungarian singer etc whose only common characteristic is how they died - possibly decades after doing whatever they were notable for. DexDor ^(talk) 22:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So by your logic, we'll delete Category:1900 births, as most of the people in that category have nothing in common with each other. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One answer to that is WP:OSE. Another is that it's correct that Category:1900 births doesn't follow the "categories are for grouping similar topics" rule (and in this I disagree slightly with JPL below), but that category exists more to assist administration of the encyclopedia (in particular to assist identifying articles that are/not within BLP). The births categories don't follow the normal conventions of "navigation" categories such as being broken up into subcategories once they get to a few hundred members. Note also that the y-o-b and y-o-d/living categories don't cause much category clutter, don't cause much watchlist noise and don't put actors, politicians etc under Category:Medicine. DexDor ^(talk) 05:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. I agree with the rationale expressed above. Neutrality^talk 23:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Lugnuts. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Disability, medical, or psychological conditions allowing categorization of medical conditions, deaths by cause should be categorized. Well, will you propose to delete Category:Deaths by cause and its all subcategories?--Jun Nijo (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section says "... should not be added to subcategories ... unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual.", but cause of death is not defining of all/most of the people in these categories (e.g. Mujeeb Aalam). Re "will you propose" - see the previous CFD linked in the nom. DexDor ^(talk) 05:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These are non-defining causes of death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment being born in a specific year is a common category, it puts people on the earth at the same time, and makes for a common experience. People who die of stroke have done so hundreds of years apart, and since it varies from some who die immidieately from a first stroke and others who die much later from a second, there is really nothing in common. Some causes of death maybe worth grouping people on, but these causes of death are not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cause of death is a strong defining characteristic, prominently noted in any obituary or real-world encylopedic work about an individual. Alansohn (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For most people, cause of death is not mentioned prominently (e.g. in the first paragraph) of an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia or otherwise). An obituary published shortly after the person's death may give extra prominence to details of the death - but not all obituaries do (e.g. Radio 4's obituary programme rarely/never mentions cause of death). A comprehensive encylopedia article (of someone who's died) will mention cause of death (alongside hundreds of other facts) in the text, but this CFD is not about article text; it's about how we categorize wp articles - and that should be by grouping together articles about similar subjects. DexDor ^(talk) 05:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Most of these causes of death are too common to merit a category. Very unusual causes of death might merit one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree wholeheartedly with this - 'people who died in a plane crash' might be defining; 'people who died of pneumonia' is not. Neutrality^talk 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep I strongly oppose this discussion as well as Deaths from congestive heart failure CfD below, the issue needs a centralized discussion, not a few discussions with some inconsistent local consensus, especially as many categories are intersected each other. We need a wide-ranging RfC or something analogue to settle a so large matter and to achieve a consistent result, instead of these piecemeal discussions that only attract a few CfD regulars at most. Cavarrone 08:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a "centralized discussion"? The previous discussion about a larger group of categories (linked in the nom) was "closed as a trainwreck - No prejudice against more clear, more focused re-nominations."; that's exactly what this is. Whatever size chunk of this tree is brought to CFD could face either/both of "needs a wide-ranging discussion" or "needs a more focussed discussion" objections. DexDor ^(talk) 17:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That note about re-nomination is more the personal opinion of the (involved, as noted by he himself in his rationale) closer than a summary of the discussion. And the previous nomination was not less piecemeal than this one. Note I made the same comment about needing a more wide-ranging, systemic and complete discussion about "Death by cause" categories in that CfD. Doing these categories singly is a waste of resources and hot air. And a half dozens of CfD regulars are not the proper jury to judge categories which affect so many articles. Cavarrone 18:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen a wide-ranging discussion in Wikipedia that is systematic, complete and produced a clear result? Any such discussion elsewhere than CFD would then probably need another discussion at CFD to actually delete the categories. DexDor ^(talk) 20:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you ever seen...?" Generally RfCs are used for similar purposes and they generate such results. Maybe it would be necessary "another discussion at CFD to actually delete (or restructure, or rename, or merge, or whatever) the categories", but the subsequent CfD(s) would be at that point a mere formality, as it/they would point to/reflect a wider consensus and the result would be way more solid than some fragmentary, cherry-picked CfDs. And the "Deaths by cause" categories-structure is IMO so wide, complex and affects so many articles as to require a wide-ranging, systemic and better-attended discussion to give a meaningful and consistent result. Cavarrone 22:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my rationale given below. The cited CFD is highly aberrant and flies in the face of our standard practise of having death categories for most types of death. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. Why do you think the cited CFD is "highly aberrant"? DexDor ^(talk) 20:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Death is just as defining of an individual as their birth. Furthermore, these categories are well established, long-standing, interesting and useful to our readers. -- œ^™ 12:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this category could one day be the basis of creating a set of data used to study these kinds of deaths. Keeping the category causes no harm. Just because this cause of death is common doesn't decrease the notability. Reading the other responses above, I noticed that there are no policies or guidelines that are used to support this category's deletion therefore it best to keep it.

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whether we vote upon the mass nomination in the previous "trainwreck" of a discussion or focus on a random selection here of four related causes, there is obviously no consensus on such a wide-ranging matter and continuing to nominate these categories for deletion will not bring us any closer to agreement. Death categories have been around for a long time and have enough support with users to remain among the living. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:01, 25 July 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: administrative close, overlap with other discussion about same category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nudity in film

Nominator's rationale: delete after closing this earlier discussion, per WP:NONDEF. In contrast to various editors' comments (including the closer) I'm very sceptical about purging, which would probably become too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Afaics the only article we actually have on this topic is the eponymous article (which may need to be upmerged). The other content of this category is articles about specific films and subcategories most/all of which don't belong in this category (e.g. a film can be about sexuality without anyone appearing naked). DexDor ^(talk) 20:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The eponymous article is already in Category:Nudity and in Category:Film censorship. Should be okay, I think. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the April 2015 discussion. That was only two months ago. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The closer of the discussion left it open to renominate the category for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is non-defining of films. How much nudity is needed? For how long? This is not a unified topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw this proposal, way earlier, on April 13, the delete discussion was started and it's not closed yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 22 June 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 12:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Former administrative units of Pakistan‎ to Category:Former subdivisions of Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the two categories seem to serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Not clear what the difference is or why we have one with the other as the only content as a subcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 9 July 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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Former administrative units of Russia‎ to Category:Former subdivisions of Russia
• Propose upmerging Category:Former federal subjects of Russia‎‎ to Category:Former subdivisions of Russia

Nominator's rationale: upmerge. The parent category and the two child categories seem to serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that federal subjects are not administrative divisions, hence two different categorization paths. Neutral on the merge.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2015; 12:24 (UTC)

• Federal subjects says: they are the constituent entities of Russia, its top-level political divisions according to the Constitution of Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, political divisions, the constituent entities. It is incorrect to classify such entities as "administrative divisions" (I can provide a source to corroborate that); just like it's incorrect to call the US states "administrative divisions".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2015; 12:29 (UTC)

• Do you know enough about the subject to sort out these categories properly? Something needs to happen for sure, because of the overlap of contents between the two nominated child categories, but perhaps it should be reorganized in a different way than I proposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I know quite a bit about the subject (it's what the majority of my contributions are). The current setup actually works fine, even though it may seem counter-intuitive at the first glance. Federal subjects are not administrative divisions, but the now-defunct autonomous okrugs (as well as still existing Nenets Autonomous Okrug) had dual nature—they were constituent entities of the Federation and at the same time they were the administrative divisions of other federal subjects (i.e., one level below). This is why there is some overlap in the categories. When the autonomous okrugs were merged, they lost their constituent unit status but remained administrative divisions (although of a different sort than before). I know this all sounds very confusing, but that's how Russia's territorial organization is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2015; 19:50 (UTC)

• Definitely confusing and thanks for your clarification! Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 23 June 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. Can be re-created if needed to house more articles that are created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Lodeynopolsky Uyezd to Category:Former subdivisions of Leningrad Oblast

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, both the nominated category and the target category are very small. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. WP:SMALLCAT prescribes to avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members.... This category may not have more than a few members any time soon, but definitely not "never". All it takes is one editor interested in this particular division to create all sorts of stuff which will qualify for inclusion into this category.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2015; 12:23 (UTC)

• The next line of the guideline asserts that categories should have a "realistic potential of growth". That seems to be more meaningful than the first line. If "never" is to be taken too literally, the guideline would become entirely meaningless in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not my intent to take the "never" part literally. I do not, however, see why the future growth of this category would be "unrealistic". The said growth may not occur very soon, but it will definitely occur. My oppose stands.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2015; 12:21 (UTC)

• Upmerge for now without prejudice against recreation if a large number of articles are created which can fit in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 9 July 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 12:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French writers of African descent seems to be just silly. All humans are of African descent. I don't understand what articles should or should not be in this category.-91.10.11.149 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and look at the rest of Category:People of African descent by occupation etc. DexDor ^(talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while assuming that this may be a start to cutting the larger part of the descent tree per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I'm unfamiliar with the process: If consensus is established the way it currently looks, what would be the next step?-91.10.11.149 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion decides to delete the category then an editor (e.g. myself) may then consider what to do about similar categories. If you want to help out at CFD then I strongly recommend that you get a username and install Twinkle (it's much easier than doing a CFD nomination manually). DexDor ^(talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not a defined group and potentially mixes too many unlike people. We need to keep in mind Wikipedia does not categorize by race. I think the French Guianana's by x descent categories are too close to being by race. We need to group people by recognized ethnic groups in French Guiana, not by their ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I agree with you, it may be important to stress that we're initially talking about French writers, not about French Guianan writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• French Guiana is a department of France. A person in French Guiana who writes is at least as much a French writer as a person in Hawaii who writes is an American writer. At least because in actuallity American states have more autonomy than French departments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh okay so it's not a misunderstanding. Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- We have loads of descent categories. Yes everyone is nultimately of African descent, but descent categories usually refer to a migration in recent generations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How recent? Consider, for example, Alexandre Dumas where you have to go back at least to great-grandparents before you get to anyone actually born in Africa. DexDor ^(talk) 22:01, 25 June 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, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Hindu saints to Category:Hindu religious leaders
• Propose upmerging Category:Hindu gurus to Category:Hindu religious leaders
• Propose merging Category:Hindu religious figures to Category:Hindu religious leaders
• Propose merging Category:Hindu devotees to Category:Hindu religious leaders

Nominator's rationale: upmerge. All these people are some kind of a Hindu spiritual teacher. Articles seem to have been classified randomly in any of these four (or, more often, in multiple of these four) categories. In the end it all comes down to - in Wikipedia terminology - "religious leaders". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all - I agree w/nom. Neutrality^talk 23:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all - there are no clear definitions for these terms. For the devotees we do not even have an article that attempts to describe what this term is referring to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 24 June 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: do not rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the United States to Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarifies the goal of this container cat. Slivicon (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comments in the Canadian sprinters CFD. Note: I think this should be deleted, like the CV disease category discussed below, but that would require a CFD that includes the subcats. DexDor ^(talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep; there ought to be a parent "in the USA" category for anything that's "in the USA by state". The latter doesn't really fit into "by country" categories directly, and also what do you do with people whose state of death isn't known? Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 1 July 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: do not rename. MER-C 12:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Canadian sprinters to Category:Canadian sprinters by gender

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a container cat, but has articles. I think changing the name improves the clarity of this being a container. However, there are a lot of categories that are attempting to be containers of people by gender but are not named as clearly intending that goal. Slivicon (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there is no need to go round all categories deciding whether or not they are containers. Category:Canadian sprinters is a category for Canadian sprinters. Category:Canadian sprinters by gender would be a subcat scheme as opposed to some other subcat scheme ('by height', 'by period', 'by ethnicity', 'by event'). There are no other subcat schemes so there is no need to complicate the name. Oculi (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: Some would disagree. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Misuse_of_Container_categories.3F (Unsigned comment by IP[1] at 18:35)

• Keep per Oculi. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can see the attraction of having a one-to-one match between categories tagged as container categories and categories having "by" in their name, but where there's only one subcategorization scheme a rename (which might then be followed by someone re-creating the Canadian sprinters category for consistency with all the other categories under Category:Sprinters) adds extra complexity to the category structure for little/no benefit. Note: I'm not convinced that the Container tag is doing anything useful here (as articles should always be placed in the lowest applicable category). DexDor ^(talk) 19:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both the category and the container category. After the vitriol aimed at those of us who try to place articles in the lowest possible category if there was not a container category, a person would fear moving an article down because they might be threatened with blocking. It may be 2 years since the poisonois and unthoughtout screed was published in a US newspaper, but some of us have not forgotten the ugliness of the whole thing and know that removal of the container category heading would open this as a new front of the ugliness. Even if sport is the one place where gender division is most clear, it will not stop the ugly and hateful attacks coming here unless we prepare for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There is no need to split. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 25 June 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: do not rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Canadian musical group navigational boxes to Category:Canadian musical group navigational boxes by genre

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I just finished moving templates to subcats in this container. I feel the new name improves the clarity of the container. Slivicon (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comments in Canadian sprinters CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I can't see anything wrong with the present set-up. There will be Canadian musical groups which do not fit neatly into any particular genre. Oculi (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: The problem then is that this category was set as a container category (no articles). So, if a page logically belongs to "Canadian musical group navigational box", but does not "fit neatly into any particular genre", how can it be allowed in this container cat? Do you mean a subcategory would have to be created in that instance? --Slivicon (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that it should not be a container category. Just remove the container tag. Oculi (talk) 21:12, 22 June 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Russian Orthodox bishops to Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by jurisdiction

Nominator's rationale: upmerge ambiguous category, from the name it seems as if it would contain bishops of Russian nationality, but in fact it contains bishops of two Russian Orthodox church bodies. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Russian Orthodox is a denomination. It is in communion with Greek Orthodox, but distinct. Under Communism, certain churches in the West dissociated themsleves from Moscow, basically for political reasons, but that does not make them Greeks or Assyrians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the comment, but the nomination doesn't imply that Russian Orthodox is Greek or Assyrian. It just brings the two child categories directly in a category by church body. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 25 June 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 12:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Metropolitans of Finland to Category:Bishops of the Finnish Orthodox Church

Nominator's rationale: an easy rationale is WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in the category. Another rationale is the fact that most notable Orthodox bishops in Wikipedia have at least the rank of metropolitan which makes it just generally not very useful to distinguish metropolitans categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support easily confusable with cities that are metropolitan of Finland -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 24 June 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths from congestive heart failure

Nominator's rationale: delete after the earlier deletion of the parent category in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categories are intended to group articles about similar topics (e.g. people who are notable for a similar thing). This category is very much WP:DNWAUC. If kept (and intended for biography articles) it should be renamed "People who died from ..." to distinguish it from categories like Category:Deaths by rocks thrown at cars which actually are about deaths. DexDor ^(talk) 16:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree w/precedent. Neutrality^talk 23:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cause of death is a strong defining characteristic, prominently noted in any obituary or real-world encylopedic work about an individual. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not - I've just looked at some articles in Britannica (e.g. [2]) and none even mentioned cause of death. See also my comment in the deaths CFD above. DexDor ^(talk) 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This is not an unusual casue of death, hence too common to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep As per "Deaths from heart attacks and strokes" above, the issue needs a centralized discussion, not a few discussions with some inconsistent local consensus, especially as many categories are intersected each other. We need a wide-ranging RfC or something analogue to settle a so large matter and to achieve a consistent result, instead of these piecemeal discussions that only attract a few CfD regulars at most. Cavarrone 08:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better place to discuss whether a group of categories should be kept/deleted than CFD? If by a "centralized discussion" you mean one discussion that covers a wide range of categories then see the "closed as trainwreck" discussion. Any editors/projects with an interest in this category will have been informed by the usual means (watchlists/alerts), but if you think additional publicity would be appropriate then you can notify relevant projects etc. DexDor ^(talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just now noticed your reply here. I think I already answered to a similar question in the "Deaths from heart attacks and strokes" section above, specifically here. My best, Cavarrone 08:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The difference with Britannica is that they're stuck with limited space, and cause of death is a detail that's easily excised from any biography except for people whose deaths were major incidents; surely the cause of death for Lee Harvey Oswald is important in a print-encyclopedia context, but the cause of death for Jack Ruby isn't. Since we're WP:NOTPAPER, we're not bound by space restrictions, and we can easily cover causes of death when there's sourcing for it. Causes of death are strong defining characteristics, prominently noted (when known) in any obituary or real-world work about an individual in which space isn't a consideration. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "we can easily cover causes of death when there's sourcing for it" - this discussion isn't proposing to remove any information about people's death from the article text (where it can be read and be referenced). Do you have any evidence to back up the statement made in your last sentence? DexDor ^(talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your comment about Britannica, which omits this kind of thing because of space reasons. I just went to my personal bookshelf and found a few easy examples. Edward Gibbon devotes space to the death cause of Robert Guiscard (chapter LVI; page 216 of vol. VI in the 1912 Bury edition), Michael Psellos discusses the circumstances of the death of Constantine IX (Book VI of the Chronographia, page 260 in the 1966 Penguin edition), and Robert K. Massie spends a good while discussing the last illness of Peter I of Russia. Exceptions exist; for example, Natalie Zemon Davis doesn't give Martin Guerre's death cause, but she doesn't even give a death date, because she explicitly states that the guy doesn't show up in the records for years at a time. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is far too common to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 9 July 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:Physiographic territorial entities to Category:Physiographic divisions

Nominator's rationale: downmergeas it's not clear how "territorial entities" would distinguish from "divisions". Just as an illustration of this, Category:Physiographic provinces and Category:Physiographic sections are currently subcats of both the nominated and of the target category. Besides, "territorial entities" seems like a term that is more suitable in human geography than in physical geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: if proposal gets consensus, Category:Physiographic divisions should be parented to Category:Physical geography directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:23, 21 June 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Generic types of holidays to Category:Types of secular holidays

Nominator's rationale: rename by adding "secular" C2C to parent category and by removing "generic" as redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:10, 21 June 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 deleted per CSD G7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonLucas22 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:POINTy creation as the result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: we can't have inexperienced editors ruining Wikipedia with their Featured Articles and POINTy categories. They should learn to take personal attacks and like 'em. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You created the category, and since you are voting Delete, it counts as WP:G7. Therefore Speedy delete. --TL22 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here is a WP:Permalink of the exact discussion. And since this category will be deleted, and I know that citing it will come in handy in the future if I "have to" deal with Curly Turkey ever again, I am documenting here that it was created by Curly Turkey and that it stated the following: "This category is for users determined by Flyer22 to lack experience, according to arbitrary criteria." Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you're no stranger to this kind of thing? I guess I'm not the first subject of a personal attack by you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering what Curly Turkey means by "no stranger to," see here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 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: do not rename. A rename to Category:Jackson family (show business) could be proposed in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jackson musical family to Category:Jackson family

Nominator's rationale: Per main article: Jackson family —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are other Jackson families. I think we should rename the article to conform to the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – there is Category:Jackson family of West Virginia, so Jackson family is ambiguous. The article should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The renamed category would invite the inclusiomn of anyone with the surname Jackson, but we do not allow such categories. The target is a disambiguation category and rightly so. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom, but Rename to Category:Jackson family (show business), per Category:Osmond family (show business), and other examples at Category:Show business families of the United States. I think all the "musical family" cats need a rename and Category:Musical families should be at least renamed to "musician families". Though "acting families" and "musician families" sound like they should probably be listified, and Upmerged to Category:Show business families. - jc37 03:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nom, but strongly support renaming to Category:Jackson family (show business) as suggested by Jc37 above. Cavarrone 19:10, 1 July 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/rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merge and rename Category:Military bases of the United States in Afghanistan and Category:Military facilities of the United States in Afghanistan to Category:Military installations of the United States in Afghanistan
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Australia to Category:Military installations of the United States in Australia
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Bahrain to Category:Military installations of the United States in Bahrain
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Belgium to Category:Military installations of the United States in Belgium
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Military installations of the United States in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Bulgaria to Category:Military installations of the United States in Bulgaria
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in the Republic of China to Category:Military installations of the United States in the Republic of China
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Cuba to Category:Military installations of the United States in Cuba
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Ecuador to Category:Military installations of the United States in Ecuador
• Propose merge and rename Category:Military facilities of the United States in France and Category:Military bases of the United States in France to Category:Military installations of the United States in France
• Propose rename Category:Military facilities of the United States in Germany to Category:Military installations of the United States in Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Greece to Category:Military installations of the United States in Greece
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Greenland to Category:Military installations of the United States in Greenland
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Guam to Category:Military installations of the United States in Guam
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Honduras to Category:Military installations of the United States in Honduras
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Hungary to Category:Military installations of the United States in Hungary
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Italy to Category:Military installations of the United States in Italy
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Japan to Category:Military installations of the United States in Japan
• Propose merge and renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Kosovo and Category:Military facilities of the United States in Kosovo to Category:Military installations of the United States in Kosovo
• Propose renaming Category:Military bases of the United States in Kuwait to Category:Military installations of the United States in Kuwait
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Kyrgyzstan to Category:Military installations of the United States in Kyrgyzstan
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Luxembourg to Category:Military installations of the United States in Luxembourg
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Morocco to Category:Military installations of the United States in Morocco
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in the Netherlands to Category:Military installations of the United States in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities decided on the merge of all 'Military facilities' and 'Military bases' categories to 'Military installations,' for clarity. However not all the hundreds of subcategories were listed in the original nomination. At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Category:Military_facilities_of_the_United_States_in_Germany, a speedy CfR was recommended, but discussion at User talk:Armbrust#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 11#Category:Military facilities of the United States in Germany revealed that some users believed that a speedy CfR was inappropriate. Thus I am starting to list the remaining categories as a mass but non-speedy CfR. Your assistance in closing off this long-running matter is appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection but the this should not necessarily be applied to those of otehr states. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 25 June 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. A new proposal could be made to change the "Great Armenia" to "greater Armenia". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Regions of old Armenia to Category:Historical regions of Great Armenia

Nominator's rationale: rename C2C to parents Category:Administrative divisions of Great Armenia and Category:Historical regions by country. I haven't nominated it for speedy, because the insertion of the word "Great" may be questionable. Note that other categories in Category:Historical regions by country do not have an insertion like that. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Armenia has been notified of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Support or Category:Historical regions of greater Armenia, which might be better still. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not against the latter, but then the parent category should be renamed as well in a later nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 30 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.