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 . – Fayenatic London 07:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the South Dakota Senate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I had a brain fart and didn't realize a category for this already existed at Category:South Dakota State Senators, due to the name discrepancy. Sorry - for that reason I'm requesting deletion. :( – TCMemoire 23:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Per WP:G7. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2016 (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 and left a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Food industry in India to Category:Food and drink in India

Nominator's rationale: Not altogether useless, but not the optimal categorization for most listed articles and subcategories. Also not in line with the established standard scheme that offers sufficiently fine-grained categories for each of these articles. PanchoS (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support' The wider scope makes sense given the current content of the category. (Note also that we don't have a "food industry by country" subtree and I don't think one would be particularly helpful) Pichpich (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pichpich: We however do have Category:Food manufacturers by country and could create Category:Food manufacturers of India. For the hodgepodge this category here currently contains, Category:Food and drink in India should be the best choice though. --PanchoS (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2016 (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 articles to Category:South Korean reality television series. The subcategory can be left in Category:Participants in South Korean reality television series‎. Consensus is that this category shouldn't really exist, but there was no consensus on how to resolve this and what to do with the subcategory. This is the action which realizes the consensus of getting rid of this category while presenting the smallest departure from the current categorization scheme. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 23:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Unpretty Rapstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main article Unpretty Rapstar is a stub. It should be fleshed out and sourced before creating a category for it. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The article that I saw was a bit more than a stub. We have 10 articles in a contestants subcat and two articles, presumably on two series. My reaction would be to merge Unpretty Rapstar 2 with the main article and then delete, leaving the contestants category with the one article as its main article but we cannot do that while there are still two substantive articles. I am far from happy about these contestant categories, which seem to fail WP:OC#PERF, but while the articles survive, they have to have a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:South Korean reality television series, I guess both User:Dimadick and User:Peterkingiron may be okay with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Crawfordsville High School faculty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category that is unlikely to grow. Category was created in 2010. TM 18:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Now Per WP:SMALLCAT with no objection to recreating later if it gets up to 5 articles or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we almost never categorize people by the high school they taught at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Computer optimization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is not a well-defined category. Does it mean software optimization techniques? Hardware acceleration features? Software optimization techniques that use hardware acceleration features? Its current members fall into all of these categories, and the list is generally anemic. I think it should be deleted. Risc64 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous CfD discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Computer optimization includes all the subcategories and hundreds of underlying articles. The fact that the subject is properly subdivided into software optimization, hardware acceleration and network optimization and whatever else in the real world and here in WP is not a problem--it is a fact, just as computing itself is likewise subdivided. Hmains (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains and because the nomination has not explained why straight deletion would be more appropriate than an upmerge to Category:Computer performance. DexDor ^(talk) 05:42, 9 June 2016 (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 housekeeping, WP:G6. Thanks for listing these, but they don't need discussion; if you find any more, please use ((db-housekeeping)). – Fayenatic London 07:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dhawalagiri Zone geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:ESports team stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Pigeon stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Templates have already migrated for these categories. As long as everyone uses stub tags to note stub articles, then no one should ever even notice these categories. No need to keep. Dawynn (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Insects acting as insect pest control agents. No opposition to this rename, and it's pretty clear everyone at least considers this an improvement, if not ideal. There's no consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 21:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pest insects biological control insects to Category:Biological pest insect control insects

Nominator's rationale: Cumbersome name currently gives an impression of two separate insect groups. As long as those insects are used to control pest insects, new title might clarify what's going on. Brandmeister^talk 15:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to @Brandmeister: if the insects are to control insect pests, shouldn't the name rather be Category:Biological insect pest control insects? – Fayenatic London 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be that way, the suggested word order is provisional. Alternatively it could be Category:Pest insect control insects, with the word "biological" becoming redundant. Brandmeister^talk 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Either way it remains confusing. Normally I don't like longer category names but in this case I would propose something like Category:Insects acting as pest insect control agents Category:Insects acting as insect pest control agents. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not even agreed yet on what to call an insect that is a pest. This Ngram and this show that in books, "insect pest" is far more common than "pest insect" which both of you have used. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected myself in this respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/listify as this is a non-defining characteristic of, for example, odonata. A list would be much more appropriate as it could explain how the insect has been used (with citation). DexDor ^(talk) 05:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The characteristic is mentioned quite often quite prominently in the WP articles of this category, odonata seems to be more like an exception. Having said that about the articles, I have to admit that I don't know if this applies equally to original sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned prominently (e.g. in the lead paragraph) in the articles I've looked at - e.g. Megarhyssa doesn't mention it at all, Mantis says "mantises do not have key attributes of biological pest control agents" ... DexDor ^(talk) 17:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We have apparently looked at different articles (I checked Larra bicolor to mention one random example), but combining our both observations I can only agree that there is no consistent prominent mentioning of this characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Could you clarify what your current position is after this conversation? ~ Rob^Talk 23:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't oppose delete, I wouldn't oppose a rename in general, but I am opposing keeping the category as is (with such an unclear name) or a rename to something that is as confusing as the current name, like the nominated name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2016 (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: upmerge to Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There's consensus that this category shouldn't exist, but no consensus on whether or not it should be upmerged or deleted. Upmerging is the smaller deviation from the status quo, since it doesn't remove the articles/subcategories from this tree. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 01:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Foreign involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is pretty vague and dubious CAT. + overcat? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is vague and dubious about it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the time being I tend to oppose, because of the vagueness of the rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems contrived collection of not-really related stuff. We could just as well create categories for foreign involvement in any number of "conflicts" real or imagined. Category:Foreign involvement in the German-English conflict otherwise termed WW2, or Category:Foreign involvement in the DRC conflict, Category:Foreign involvement in the Angolan Civil War etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have several of those categories, e.g. Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. If it is really a problem to have categories like these, they'd better be nominated together. But honestly I don't get it yet why it would be a problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - generally there is no problem with "Foreign involvement in <Foo war>" cats, but this one doesn't include any relevant article (Foreign involvement of <foo>). If there is no article, there should be no category.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you elaborate on that a bit? Aren't the articles about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Aren't they about foreign involvement? And does that really apply to all 17 articles? And what about the three subcats? Why not suggest to purge or merge instead of delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit disappointed about the vagueness of this discussion. Note that a plain deletion is really not an option, because that would make the articles of this category disappear from the tree of Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict which they definitely belong in. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a legitimate sub-category. I see no dubiousness. I see no vagueness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are two corresponding categories in the same format, Category:Foreign involvement in the Iraqi Civil War and Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. In regard to the argument made by Marcocapelle above, in both of those cases, nations outside of Iraq and Syria (respectively) are actually involved in the conflicts, with boots on the ground or planes in the air. That's not the case here. A hodge-podge of lawsuits, riots, various advocacy groups, meetings, controversies in foreign newspapers alleging that Israeli troops harvested organs from Palestinians and other such potpourri does not constitute "foreign involvement", and the assortment of articles tagged as such adds nothing to the reader. This is a mere WP:COATRACK. Alansohn (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reasonable alternative I see here is to upmerge it to Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict because all articles are definitely about this conflict. That will solve nothing on the fact that the articles are a hodge-podge, however. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These articles are not about the conflict in question, they do not constitute foriegn involvement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 15:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC) (Stuck duplicate !vote. (Relisting is not an invitation to !vote a second time.))</ref>[reply]

• Sorry, technical misunderstanding!GreyShark (dibra) 21:36, 9 June 2016 (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: Upmerge all by decade, with templates recoded. Miniapolis 22:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 6 to Category:States and territories established in the 0s
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 9 to Category:States and territories established in the 0s
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 10 to Category:States and territories established in the 10s
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 15 to Category:States and territories established in the 10s
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 17 to Category:States and territories established in the 10s

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Most of these categories have very few members, often only one. There's no reason to maintain the split-out categories with only a few pages when the parent category could contain them and provide more useful categorization. ~ Rob^Talk 13:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The category is in many cases automatically created by the infobox template, and while it is no doubt possible to re-code the template to use decade instead of year for a certain range of dates, IMHO these categories do no harm, and form a worthwhile part of the category hierarchy for years. – Fayenatic London 07:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its as simple as a few if exist parser functions, which I'll implement once I'm done with this annoying Tarmac delay and my plane lands. It's best practice not to have templates categorizing into non-existent categories anyway. ~ Rob^Talk 10:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but I see no harm in templates categorising pages into categories that ought to exist as part of a major structure (per the exception in WP:SMALLCAT) as soon as there is anything to go in them. In fact, it is often useful to do so, because this automatically keeps the categories up to date when somebody corrects erroneous dates in the infobox. I recently found many biography pages where old categories were still on the page for dates of birth/death that had since been corrected only at the top of the article. At least these automated categories prevent that sort of inconsistency for states. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative (not withdrawing support for the nomination, but this alternative might be considered as an improvement over the nomination). Decade categories as the lowest level are quite rare, we usually have either year categories or century categories as the lowest level. So as for this nomination, we might merge the establishments categories to century level, then split the centuries by continent. That will create more robust final rungs, assuming that in most instances there will be a split in only 3 continents, instead of 10 decades. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose the centuries by continent because I don't believe the category tree currently has anything like that. It would be very odd to break it out that way up to a certain point in history and then change the categorization completely. "Centuries...centuries...centuries...centuries and also by decade/year" is way less of a change than "centuries by continent, centuries by continent, centuries by decade/year". ~ Rob^Talk 14:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upmerger past decades to centuries per Marcocapelle. We can divide it into continent if there's sufficient need but I don't see right now. Centuries would seemingly better match the goal with the early international relations categories which are similar and the corresponding Category:States and territories disestablished in the 1st century. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're actually right that we don't have to subdivide the century categories any further. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support this alternative as well. ~ Rob^Talk 04:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for now. This is certainly a good start, but in the longer term, I would prefer a merge to centuries; also disestablishment categories. If these are being created by infobox coding, the answer is to alter the code using some if statements, so that we get sensible cat-trees, not twigs with several segments to go though before one reaches an article. Perhaps the closing admin can start a further merge discussion on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless and until infoboxes are recoded to handle this automatically. This is something which I have been thinking about for some time wrt these by-year categories: we need some consistent mechanism which handles these years intelligently. It probably requires a wider discussion (and maybe an RFC), but I would like to see some sort of template which would fall back gracefully if the relevant categories were not present.
  Something like ((fallback establishment year | 75 | States and territories established | Establishments)) So if we had a Category:States and territories established in 75, it would use that alone ... but without it, it would use Category:States and territories established in the 70s and Category:75 establishments, and so on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I can't recode the templates until this is closed with consensus to upmerge, since that would break the current links, but I can tell you that it's trivial to link the "before X date" categories to the decade instead. I can do that if this closes with consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A conditional fallback wouldn't break any links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was under the impression you meant to use a different template. I created ((State establishment decade-only century category)) (tested at User:BU Rob13/sandbox) to give you an idea of what I had in mind. And by "breaking links" I meant "remove year links to existing year categories". I don't want to put the cart before the horse, basically. ~ Rob^Talk 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge splitting to the year level at this point is creating needlessly small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 01:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Globalization issues to Category:Global issues

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2D, alignment with article Global issue.

This time I skipped WP:CFDS, after this oppose against a previous C2D nomination in the same field. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Though conceptually 'globalization issues' are not the same as 'global issues', most articles categorized here fall more into the latter than the former. Thanks for your efforts. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2016 (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: split. Everyone agrees we should categorize activists and politicians together. Per the concerns of PanchoS, Category:Hong Kong pan-democrats should almost certainly be a container category. If a person can't be sorted into the activists subcat or any political party subcats, they probably don't belong there at all. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 06:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Hong Kong democracy activists to Category:Hong Kong democracy activists and Category:Hong Kong pan-democrats

Nominator's rationale: Not all pan-democrats are democracy activists, and vice versa. Propose recategorize like this: Liberalism in Hong Kong ->

Hong Kong pan-democrats -> Hong Kong democracy activists. UU (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming because of the use of "pan-democrats" in English-language reliable sources about political discourse in Hong Kong. I would propose further that we skip Category:Hong Kong democracy activists altogether and simply categorize Category:Hong Kong pan-democrats into Category:Democracy activists by nationality, because conformity to reliable sources is more important than conformity to similarly named categories. Deryck C. 10:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with the nominator that neither will every sympathizer of a camp of political parties be a democracy activist, nor can we expect all democracy activists to subscribe to the camp. Therefore, Deryck Chan's proposal is the worst of all worlds. However, given that a good share of Hong Kong's population will sympathize with the camp, if someone neither is a democracy activist nor a politician of one of the Pan-democracy camp's parties, then the person's affiliation with the camp probably is WP:NON-DEFINING. Feel free to point us to examples where this wouldn't be the case, and I'm willing to reconsider. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand correctly, you're not opposing the nomination but the alternative to rename, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Clearly I'm opposing the alternative proposal, but I'm not convinced of the original proposal either. It would be unprecedented to categorize non-politicians and non-activists per their alleged affiliation with a political coalition. And I don't think it would be a good precedent. Activists belong in the existing Category:Hong Kong democracy activists, while politicians belong in Category:Hong Kong politicians by party. If these are correctly categorized, who would then be listed in the proposed "pan-democrats" category, and what makes someone who neither is an activist nor a politician be a "pan-Democrat"? --PanchoS (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am presuming that the politicians category will become a container category, holding politicians of political parties. And if someone is neither a politician nor an activist, he would just not belong here at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support split between politicians and activists, the category now contains a mix of both. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 01:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Historical works by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:American historical works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Created during a 'productive' day for Stefanomione in early May, when a number of his other categories were faring badly at Cfd. I had already started depopulating this -- removing Category:Images by country (in that images need not be "historical") and Category:Libraries by country (in that libraries are not here considered "works" as in Category:Intellectual works) when I remembered that as a result of consensus regarding the parent for all this, Category:Historical works, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historical_works, we can simply dispense with his aborted by-country scheme as a matter of course, and restore any previous categories that he had removed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as proposed. Pichpich (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. All subcategories of Category:Historical works by country are properly parented to other categories and will not be difficult to locate. Category:American historical works is a mess. Subcategory Category:United States historical documents contains documents that may be used by historians as primary sources, Subcategory Category:United States National Film Registry films lists films which have been chosen for preservation due to their historical value, and Subcategory Category:Images of the United States is one of Wikipedia's categories about its own content (specifically public domain and freely usable images). I do not see what they have in common. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom/. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2016 (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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ortalis to Category:Ortalis (fly)

Nominator's rationale: This category is for the fly genus, but there is no article about the genus specifically, just a bunch of articles about the species within the genus. Ortalis redirects to Chachalaca, and Ortalis is also the genus name of that bird. So the category for the fly genus needs a disambiguator of some sort. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Ortalis (insect) ? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's preferred, I'd have no objection. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in Some Fashion I'll defer to the other editors for the exact target name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer fly as more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in some fashion. According to the article on the Chachalaca, the term "Ortalis" is a loan word from ancient Greek, where it means "pullet" or "domestic hen". So it does seem to apply primarily to birds. Using the insect as the primary topic seems to be confusing. The insect genus Ortalis (ulidiid) has been a red link for quite some time, though the origins of the term do not seem to be explained in the parent article Ulidiidae (picture-winged flies). It is actually mentioned there as a 19th-century synonym for the Seioptera. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly rename, but perhaps we should listify the contents too, by way of a start to a main article. This may encourage someone to provide content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2016 (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.