< December 26	December 28 >

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:Experimental medical treatments in fiction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Human and non-human experimentation in fiction to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: This name is awkward and excessively long. Unfortunately, I can’t pick the best name for this. Possibly Category:Experimentation in fiction? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... "Experimentation in fiction" sounds like the use of experimental writing techniques. Its parent is Category:Experimental medical treatments, so perhaps Category:Experimental medical treatments in fiction? Grutness...wha? 00:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or Category:Medical experimentation in fiction. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Category:Experimental medical treatments in fiction, following the parent category name, per Grutness. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Experimental medical treatments in fiction to match the non-fiction parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2018 (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, implemented as a dual merge to both parents. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Unani medical colleges in Karnataka to Category:Unani medicine organisations‎

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Not much scope for more Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I have to search to find what Unani was. This led me to a main article now at Yunani medicine. Is there a need for some rationalisation of spelling here? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2017 (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 all per nom.
Pinging @Mangoe + @DexDor; you may want to recat some articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Air defence vehicles of Russia to Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of Russia
Propose renaming Category:Air defence vehicles of Serbia to Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of Serbia
Propose renaming Category:Air defence vehicles of the Soviet Union to Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of the Soviet Union
Propose renaming Category:Anti-aircraft vehicles of the United States to Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion, I'm proposing renaming the parallel articles to match the main article. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but some of these articles (e.g. PPRU-1 and Ranzhir) are not about weapons and should be recategorized. DexDor^(talk) 21:41, 30 December 2017 (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 8#Category:Rock_lighthouses_of_Scotland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Rock lighthouses of Scotland to Category:Lighthouses of Scottish islands

Nominator's rationale: Not clear what the criteria for inclusion might be. A couple of members are on isolated rocks; most are on islands of greater or lesser rockiness. I can see a category of open-water lights, but this isn't it and I don't see that the current membership has enough in common. The upmerge presumes that all of these are on islands; exceptions would upmerge to Category:Lighthouses in Scotland or some other appropriate subcat. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define and keep I think what this needs is a definition. I think they are all on isolated rocks or other otherwise uninhabited islands, as opposed to those on the main islands of the Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland or the Scottish mainland. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Category:Lighthouses of inhabited Scottish islands be a matter of WP:NARROWCAT? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Rock lighthouse and Category:Rock lighthouses are (currently) redlinks. DexDor^(talk) 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a little obscure but half of these lights are not on "islands" in the usual sense i.e. they are built on rocks that are or were in their original state submerged at higher stages of the tide. The original definition I used is easy to relate - they appear in Christopher Nicholson (1995) Rock Lighthouses of Britain: The End of an Era? along with Chicken Rock Lighthouse, Eddystone Lighthouse and half a dozen others. I had a quick look and I can't see a formal definition there - if there was one it would be something like "lighthouses on uninhabitable rocks or very remote small islands" (with Flannan being the only example of the latter). Scotland's coast is very long and convoluted for such a small country and I think the categorisation makes sense in this context. Furthermore, with the exception of Hyskeir they are all 'very notable' for various reasons, in particular the extarordinary engineering feats that created some of them (and in one case a remarkable mystery). Ben Mac Dui 16:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the above post (e.g. that the lighthouses are notable) is irrelevant to this discussion. When it comes to categorization it's not unreasonable to count rocks that are covered at high tide as islands (without the category name explicitly saying so). DexDor^(talk) 08:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I doubt you would say that if you had ever been involved in building one! At Dhu Heartach "fourteen men were trapped there for five days, and at one point seawater poured in through the trapdoor, swirled around them and exited with their remaining food supplies."Ben Mac Dui 12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World-wide there is a very small number of these open-water stone foundation lights (I believe for example that the only US case is at Minot's Ledge Light). If we could come up with good sourcing I could support a single category for all the examples, but I'm not seeing a Scottish subcat, and as I said a lot of the members now are conventional construction on smallish islands, and wouldn't properly be members. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Alligator Reef Light and perhaps other Pile lighthouses and Phare de Kéréon - site of the famous Guichard photo - and no doubt others (although likely only few per country). Perhaps Category:Rock lighthouses would be useful. Ben Mac Dui 10:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Lighthouses of Scottish islands or Category:Lighthouses in Scotland would be my preferred option at the moment. The definition is ambiguous - after all, most if not all masonry lighthouses are built on some sort of bedrock. Hyskeir Lighthouse and Flannan Isles Lighthouse are clearly on islands! All the same, these offshore lighthouses are truly unbelievable feats of engineering and I can understand why they might attract interest (I'm surprised there isn't already something like Category:Lighthouses by the Stevenson family). I notice the Lighthouse article mentions "Wave-washed" lighthouses - would that be a better definition for these sort of structures on semi-submerged rocky outcrops and reefs? Sionk (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were a merge to occur the merge in all but one case (Bell Rock Lighthouse) would be to the other sub-cats of Category:Lighthouses of Scottish islands. Ben Mac Dui

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: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Masseurs to Category:Physiotherapists

Nominator's rationale: All the subjects appear to be physiotherapists. There are other sorts of masseurs, but none of the articles seem to be about them. It appears that physiotherapist is a term introduced during the twentieth century. Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2017 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Catholic coat of arms to Category:Catholic heraldry

Nominator's rationale: The category is not merely about individual coats of arms, but Catholic heraldry in general. Also consistency with parent Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry. Brandmeister^talk 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. More general and thus suitable scope. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support per nom. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2017 (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 Church buildings by Fooian architects, without prejudice against a follow-up nomination to upmerge the English category, if desired. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Churches by British architects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Churches by English architects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No place in the world, other than England, has such categories - as can be seen here, where both the individual architects and the national-level categories can be seen. If kept, they should be renamed to "Church buildings by...", per the recent rename of Category:Churches to Category:Church buildings at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 25#Category:Churches. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Category:Churches by English architects to Category:Churches by British architects would be my prefered action (and I've no problems with renaming to "Church buildings by..."). There's no real deletion rationale presented here and, if there are sufficient ecclesiastical architects of a particular nationality, the sub-categorisation would be acceptable to me. However, there's no great reason to subcategorise by UK subdivisions at the moment. Sionk (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, but rename to "Church buildings by...". I see no real deletion rationale, nor any reason to merge English to British . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (renamed per nom), adding a parent Category:Church buildings by architect. If consensus is to delete, then the proposed parent would still be a useful replacement. Note that the architect subcategories should be standardised to "Foo church buildings", too. FWIW, there are several "Foo church building" categories for New Zealand architects, though no national category. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least one, with the suggested new parent Category:Church buildings by architect. I am not sure that we really need more than one British category. The category has considerable scope for expansion as I see no sub-cat for Sir Christopher Wren, for example. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to delete Category:Churches by British architects for now and postpone creating Category:Church buildings by architect until church categories by non-English architects will emerge. It does not make sense to have additional category layers if they currently just hinder navigation, and it's far from certain that we will soon have church categories by non-English architects. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I'd rather it was done ASAP - I'm waiting on the finalisation of the British category name before making uniformly named Australia and New Zealand ones, both of which are ready to be populated. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, spod it - forgive me for temporarily going rouge - there are now Category:Church buildings by New Zealand architects and Category:Church buildings by Australian architects. Grutness...wha? 07:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I went through a few members of Category:Buildings and structures by American architects, and there are plenty enough architects who did enough church work to support the same sort of categorization, assuming we think it is appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a fair assumption. If you are willing to create new categories including Category:Churches by American architects then I withdraw my earlier suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church buildings by American architects would seem more appropriate, given the discussion above. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings, yes, you're right. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on this but since the third entry is Ralph Adams Cram I'm a bit bogged down there. It's going to take a while. I've skipped people with less than three churches. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked backwards from Z and done all back to S. I'd have done more but I too got bogged down (by the Upjohns). Grutness...wha? 11:15, 7 January 2018 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "Wikipedians by video game" category which has an extensive history of deletion due to an overly narrow scope - there is only one possible article that such users could reasonably be expected to collaborate on (even if one assumes that those who "like" NationStates is willing to collaborate on the article, which is in and of itself questionable). VegaDark (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree because when users identify themselves as being interested in a topic, this allows other editors to collaborate with them. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is only one possible article that such users could reasonably be expected to collaborate on, a categ is pointless. Editors can collaborate on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DexDor^(talk) 21:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a user category that is overly narrow in scope. Any potential for collaboration is limited to no more than 1–3 articles (NationStates, Jennifer Government and Max Barry). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:05, 31 December 2017 (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 8#Category:United_States_Navy_organization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy organization to Category:Shore establishment of the United States Navy

Nominator's rationale: This category, 'organization of the USN', is intended for administrative organizations [1] and is constantly getting mixed up with Category:Military units and formations of the United States Navy, which corresponds to the Fleet. This rename would align Wikipedia with real life. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- because much of the content is not necessarily shore based. However, this category is a mess, and should be split. It mixes up command posts, some political rather than military; shore based admin; specialised boards; etc. We already have a shore-based subcat. Actually organization fits well. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am in the process of splitting this category. The 'Fleet' fits very well with the 'Military Units and Formations of the USN." THere are some things here (like the United States Ram Fleet) that I've just moved to MF&U categories. The whole rest of the navy is the 'Shore Establishment'. So there needs to be two main categories. Under the 'Shore establishment' will be, yes, shore commands, but that category I have just created, and is intended for formations that are at Command level. Under that level are regions, districts, offices, etc. Yes, also there also needs to be a Category:Department of the Navy (United States) which will take in the Assistant Secretaries etc, but 'Shore establishment' is a distinct body in the USN and needs to be represented. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sunni Tehreek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not of any use. Small category. Störm (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Combo Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT Oornery (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:M-Rated DC Comics video games to Category:Video games based on DC Comics

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. M-ratings are rarely ever significant and typically do not get mentioned in video game articles at all. The1337gamer (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete–There is more than one rating system for video games. It doesn’t specify which one (but might be the ESRB). LaundryPizza03 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: is there a reason why you prefer delete over merge (as nominated)? In other words, why would you want to remove the articles from the DC Comics tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2018 (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: categories were not tagged, therefore

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 21#Years in female bodybuilding. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Years in female bodybuilding

Extended content
Propose deleting Category:1978 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1979 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1980 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1981 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1982 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1983 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1985 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1986 in female bodybuilding Propose deleting Category:1987 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1988 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1989 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1990 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1991 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1992 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1993 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1994 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1995 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1996 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1997 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1998 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1999 in female bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:Years in female professional bodybuilding Propose deleting Category:1990 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1991 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1992 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1993 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1994 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1995 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1996 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1997 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1998 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:1999 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2000 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2001 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2002 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2003 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2004 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2005 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2006 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2007 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2008 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2009 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2010 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2011 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2012 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2013 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2014 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2015 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2016 in female professional bodybuilding‎ Propose deleting Category:2017 in female professional bodybuilding‎

Extended content

Propose deleting Category:1978 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1979 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1980 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1981 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1982 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1983 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1985 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1986 in female bodybuilding
Propose deleting Category:1987 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1988 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1989 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1990 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1991 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1992 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1993 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1994 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1995 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1996 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1997 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1998 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1999 in female bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:Years in female professional bodybuilding
Propose deleting Category:1990 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1991 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1992 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1993 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1994 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1995 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1996 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1997 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1998 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:1999 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2000 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2001 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2002 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2003 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2004 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2005 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2006 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2007 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2008 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2009 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2010 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2011 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2012 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2013 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2014 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2015 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2016 in female professional bodybuilding‎
Propose deleting Category:2017 in female professional bodybuilding‎

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, there isn't enough content to have years in female (professional) bodybuilding. The vast majority of these categories have zero or one page, with the maximum being four (2008). -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the corresponding subcat of Category:Years in bodybuilding. Yes, this too narrow, but merge not delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that. However, the article bodybuilding is specifically about male bodybuilding so I'm not sure if it would work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Para 1 of the lede of bodybuilding ungendered. Para2 discusses both male and female. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off the hatnote, I hadn't actually read the article. I'll change the hatnote accordingly and endorse the merge. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the corresponding subcat of Category:Years in bodybuilding. There is no substantial difference between male and female bodybuilders, so there is no need for gender categories here. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one parent, Category:Years in female bodybuilding, because in sport men and women almost invariably compete separately. We have 10 annual female body building articles and about 27 more for professional ones. That is probably not too much for one category, but perhaps we should also keep Category:Years in female professional bodybuilding. Merge in all the rest. No objection to merging also to Category:Years bodybuilding, but I do not think it is useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the corresponding subcat of Category:Years in bodybuilding per User:BrownHairedGirl; and also merge the whole lot to a new category Category:History of female bodybuilding, in the spirit of what User:Peterkingiron said, but History is more suitable then Years. Note that Category:Ms. Olympia should become a subcat of this new Category:History of female bodybuilding so that not all yearly Ms Olympia articles need to be individually moved to the new category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2018 (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.

December 27

Category:Human and non-human experimentation in fiction

Category:Unani medical colleges in Karnataka

Category:Air defence vehicles of Russia

Category:Rock lighthouses of Scotland

Category:Masseurs

Category:Catholic coat of arms

Category:Churches by British architects

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Category:United States Navy organization

Category:Sunni Tehreek

Category:Combo Rangers

Category:M-Rated DC Comics video games

Years in female bodybuilding