< November 14	November 16 >

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Pharmacology. ℯ xplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Professorships in pharmacology to Category:Pharmacologists‎

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Not a very helpful category. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Populate if possible. I cannot believe that Cambridge has the only named chair in this subject. If it really cannot be then merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom without objection to recreation if it can be populated decently. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak) - The subdivision of professorships by subject is very helpful, and there are many other named chairs of pharmacology—unfortunately, we currently have an article on just the one (hence my weak oppose). If merging, this should be merged to Category:Pharmacology, not Category:Pharmacologists (a biographical category). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to pharmacology. Much better category. No reason to have a one entry category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 26 November 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/2017 December 20#Category:Clinical pharmacologists. ℯ xplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Clinical pharmacologists to Category:Pharmacologists

Nominator's rationale: No clear distinction between the two Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, however the biography articles are already in Category:Pharmacologists by nationality insofar they were pharmacologists at all, which is not the case for all biographies that are in the currently in the category. So what needs to happen is to move the three topic articles to the other parent Category:Clinical pharmacology and then delete this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clinical pharmacology is the subfield of pharmacology concerned with the clinical application of pharmaceuticals, and so the two topics are both distinct and distinguishable. This is as much a valid subcategory of Category:Pharmacologists as Category:Clinical pharmacology is a valid subcategory of Category:Pharmacology. @Marcocapelle: I moved the three topic articles, as they did not belong in a biographical set category in the first place. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:50, 23 November 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: keep separate, no consensus to rename. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hospice to Category:Hospices

Nominator's rationale: No reason for two categories. Plural is the common usage for categories Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose, it looks like Category:Hospice is meant as a topic category, while Category:Hospices is meant to be a set category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the difference? Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – Category:Hospice is a topic category, for general topics about hospices, while its subcat Category:Hospices is a set category, for articles about particular hospices. Eg Society for the Promotion of Hospice Care is in the former but not the latter (as it is not a hospice). Assisi Hospice is a hospice and thus sits perfectly in Category:Hospices. Oculi (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Hospice care which I think would clarify the difference between the two categories. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This rename sounds reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospice care would completely overlap with Category:Palliative care‎. Its the same thing. Only difference would be some of the care takes place in a building called a hospice - but many hospices already do much of their work in people's homes. I think all the topic articles should be in palliative care. Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing that the category needs some purging, there are a number of topic articles specifically about hospices (or hospice care) in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hospice care or perhaps Category:Hospice movement. The target is about particular hospices, not the movement in general. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge exactly as proposed The topical articles in Category:Hospice might aswell go to Category:Palliative care and the rest can be transferred to Category:Hospices. Most of the articles are hospices anyway. CN1 (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles are hospices anyway...? Are we looking at the same Category:Hospice? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was too fast there. CN1 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We don't use the singular in this way. Hospices is a perfectly acceptable category title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 23 November 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. ℯ xplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Palliative medicine to Category:Palliative care

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. Palliative care is the more common term Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Equivalent concept. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated, per nom. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:59, 23 November 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. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World sports champions to Category:World champions by sport

Nominator's rationale: To match parent Category:Sports champions by sport, to better match the content of the category (divided by sport), and to make better sense (there's no such thing as "world sports" of which someone can become the champion). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt. rename to Category:World sports champions by sport, to mirror Category:Sports champions by sport (note, it is not Category:Champions by sport). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the latter probably should be, since "Sports [whatever] by sport" is redundant. Would you move Category:Medical doctors by specialty to "Category:Medical doctors by medical specialty"? I.e., the fact that a parent cat. has a poor name is no reason to give this one a poor name. And this alt. proposal misses the entire point of the original nomination: "world sports" isn't a thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, changing to rename as nominated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:18, 24 November 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: speedy delete by author request. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Law enforcement in The Gambia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category already exists with 'the Gambia' rather than 'The Gambia'. Did not know this so created this erroneously. Jeffrolland (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy C2E - author request. Grutness...wha? 20:15, 15 November 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/2017 December 20#Category:Love & Hip Hop cast members. ℯ xplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Love & Hip Hop cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As a list of cast members, reality or otherwise, this fails WP:PERFCAT. --wooden superman 15:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Shouldn't this at least be merged to Category:Participants in American reality television series, so that these articles are not completely removed from that category tree? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Falcon: Counter question: should the tree of Category:Reality television participants exist at all, or should the entire tree be deleted per WP:PERFCAT? If the answer is to keep the tree, then why wouldn't we keep all subcats as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure about Category:Reality television participants. On the one hand, it is probably fine under WP:PERFCAT because it categorizes individuals by genre rather than a specific performance or series. On the other hand, it is sometimes very defining (for people who are notable only due to their appearance on a reality television series) and sometimes not at all defining (for people who are independently notable, and are invited to appear on a reality television series). With perhaps a few exceptions, most of the individual categories by series violate WP:PERFCAT and should be upmerged, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:35, 26 November 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 all to Category:The Real Housewives cast members. ℯ xplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:The Real Housewives cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The Real Housewives of Orange County cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The Real Housewives of New York City cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The Real Housewives of New Jersey cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The Real Housewives of Atlanta cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As lists of cast members, reality or otherwise, these fail WP:PERFCAT. --wooden superman 15:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PERFCAT. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 15:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure..., for now at least merge all to Category:The Real Housewives cast members. How is this category any different from the other subcategories of Category:Participants in American reality television series, all of which were nominated and kept at CfD 2013 Oct 09? To quote User:BrownHairedGirl, "[t]he argument in favour of keeping these categories is that they are not routine performers who may appear in many shows; rather their notability derives solely from participation in one particular show, and ... few of them participate in a range of such shows." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Black Falcon; BHG's point seems like a valid one, though borderline for PERFCAT purposes. More of an circumstantial exception than not-applicable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:15, 24 November 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 to an appropriate subcategory (e.g. by nationality) of Category:Ophthalmologists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Eye surgeons to Category:Ophthalmologists‎

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. Eye surgery is not a separate specialism. Every article is also in an Ophthalmologist category Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 23 November 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: keep redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Argentinian electronic musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: C2C spelling invariably "Argentine" in Category:Argentine people by occupation. Batternut (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep Category is already a redirect, so I do not see any problem in keeping it. Though I could be persuaded to delete it.
Keep redir and probably make more of them. We're never going to be able to make people stop creating duplicate "Argentinian" categories otherwise. It's easy to have a bot move articles from the catredir to the cat. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 15:59, 15 November 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/2017 November 24#Category:British military physicians. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British military physicians to Category:British military doctors

Nominator's rationale: In line with the British medical categories Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this falls under the tree at Category:Military physicians by nationality, all of which use "Physicians". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:British military medical officers. The traditional role was actually called "surgeon", for the very good reason that their main role was to dew up or amputate battlefield casualties. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British military medical doctors, which aligns perfectly with its parent Category:British medical doctors. The local British use of the term "medical doctor" overrules the term "physician" as used in Category:Military physicians by nationality per WP:ENGVAR. Not sure about the previous rename proposal by Peterkingiron, as it is not quite clear from the few articles that are directly in this category whether these medical doctors were officers or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:British military medical officers. "Medical doctor" is actually very rarely used in Britain (we just say "doctor") and "military medical doctors" just looks odd. "Medical officers" is the common term for these people and yes, all of them had officer (or warrant officer, in the old-fashioned sense, not the modern senior NCO sense) status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 23 November 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: no consensus. ℯ xplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Azerbaijani orthopedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Azerbaijani surgeons
Propose merging Category:Belgian orthopaedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Belgian surgeons
Propose merging Category:Dutch orthopedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Dutch surgeons
Propose merging Category:Irish orthopaedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Irish surgeons
Propose merging Category:Italian orthopedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Italian surgeons
Propose merging Category:Norwegian orthopedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Norwegian surgeons
Propose merging Category:Polish orthopaedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Polish surgeons
Propose merging Category:Portuguese orthopaedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Portuguese surgeons
Propose merging Category:Russian orthopaedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Russian surgeons
Propose merging Category:Taiwanese orthopaedic surgeons to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Taiwanese surgeons

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 1 to 3 articles in each of these categories. The parent Category:Orthopedic surgeons hasn't been fully diffused by nationality as there is not enough content to do that. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Part of a large scheme. There are plenty more orthopedic surgeons yet to be disbursed into sub categories. "Surgeons" is a very large category which needs diffusing. There are no more general surgeons now. All modern surgeons are specialists. I've found 3 more Italian orthopods this morning. Rathfelder (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case I'm withdrawing the Italian subcat. However, since Category:Surgeons has now been fully diffused there is not much expansion of Category:Orthopedic surgeons to be expected, so that's even more reason not to start establishing a fully-diffused by-nationality tree here. It would merely lead to dozens of super tiny categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category:Orthopedic surgeons is an established by-nationality tree, and this is only a subset of its subcategories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only small subcategories have been nominated, obviously. While the tree is "established", it hasn't been fully diffused because that would leave us with dozens of one- or two-article categories which is not very helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly my point; the small categories are being cherry-picked which would leave half a category tree. WP:SMALLCAT allows for "dozens of one- or two-article categories" in cases like this, because it is helpful to navigation and is well-established to be so in other areas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Part of an established category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, except the Italian category, as nominated. There was not a fully established by-nationality category tree until last week, and it should never have been established in my view. 26 out of the 36 current categories contain 2 articles or fewer, and they could easily (and should) be upmerged to Category:Orthopedic surgeons and the corresponding Fooian surgeons category. Separately, User:Rathfelder, please avoid creating additional categories after the discussion has started. Doing so effectively preempts the outcome of the discussion and creates confusion—it took me a while to reconcile Marcocapelle's statement that "Category:Orthopedic surgeons hasn't been fully difussed by nationality" (on 15 November) given you fully diffused it on 17 November. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of articles about surgeons, and articles about all sorts of surgical specialities - of which there are many more than we have categories for. I have by no means finished sorting them out. I thought it was well established that a nationality tree, once established, should go down to the small nations. Why set an arbitrary limit of 3? Orthopedic surgeons from small countries may be very important in the history of orthopaedic surgery. Rathfelder (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but at what point is a nationality tree considered "established"? I don't think that is so clearly defined. You may be right in this case (The Bushranger and Necrothesp agree with you), but my comment was more about the timing of creating additional small categories during a discussion about whether small categories should be upmerged. Regarding your last sentence, I'm not questioning the importance of orthopedic surgeons from small countries or suggesting that they should not be categorized within Category:Orthopedic surgeons, but the decision of placing them in the main category versus country-level subcategories should be purely an organizational one unrelated to their importance. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(indented comment) There is no logic in your position that we should only have national occupational categories when they reach an arbitrary size. So we should abolish Category:Saint Martin people by occupation, as none of them have more than 3 members? You assert that we should merge these categories because you consider them too small, so you object to my populating them and demonstrating that you are mistaken? Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no logic in your position that we should only have national occupational categories when they reach an arbitrary size. Right, but that's not my position. My position is that we should not automatically fully diffuse every occupational category by nationality. Category:Surgeons, which contains thousands of biographies of nearly 100 nationalities, clearly should be diffused. Category:Orthopedic surgeons, which contains far few biographies of far fewer nationalities, is debatable. "3 members" is not necessarily my threshold; I just picked it to illustrate that more than half of the nationality categories contain 1–2 members.

You assert that we should merge these categories because you consider them too small, so you object to my populating them and demonstrating that you are mistaken? When did I ever object to you populating any categories? My objection (or request, to be more precise) was about creating new categories in the middle of an open discussion about what should be done with the existing ones. But, really, that's beside the point—if you felt I was attacking you somehow, rest assured that was neither my intention nor my message.

The question is whether Category:Orthopedic surgeons should be diffused fully or partially. Currently, it is fully diffused, and more than half of the categories are still "small" by any reasonable definition—I think we can agree on that, even if we disagree about what to do next. We ought to consider diffusion from the perspective of both parents: for example, does it make sense to further diffuse Category:Croatian surgeons—a category tree which contains a total of only two articles—by specialty? In my opinion, no. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't diffuse them we give people interested in orthopaedic surgeons the impression that there are no Croatian ones. And we have no way of knowing whether there are significant numbers in such categories if we are not allowed to create them. Actually I have found plenty more articles to populate the categories you picked out. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite encouraging and I do notice a decrease, but there are still 23 categories that contain just 1–2 articles. As with all categorization, the absence of a dedicated occupation–nationality category does not imply an absence of anyone of that nationality, only that there are not enough for a category (or one has not been created yet). You make a good point, however, about "[not] knowing whether there are significant numbers" until we create and try to populate the categories, but ideally we would place articles about Croatian orthopedic surgeons directly in Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Croatian surgeons until we observe that there are enough articles for a new subcategory that intersects the two. Anyway, I think we've covered this point thoroughly, so I'm happy to let others weigh in. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And we have no way of knowing whether there are significant numbers in such categories if we are not allowed to create them. While I don't fully agree with this in the first place, I would at least encourage everyone to have one's own new categories deleted if it quickly turns out they can't be sufficiently populated. It is easy enough to add a db-self template on a category page within an hour or within a day, I've done that myself multiple times. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we delete Category:Canadian orthopedic surgeons while we are at it? There were only 3 entries in it until this evening. It is completely mistaken to suggest that the category Surgeons is diffused. There are still 500 articles in the American Surgeons category and I will be very surprised if quite a lot of them are not orthopods. And can I be enlightened as to what a db-self template is? 22:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Rathfelder (talk)
See WP:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There will only be 3 articles in Category:Azerbaijani surgeons if they are merged. Do you want to abolish that too? Why should we bother to have any categories for Azerbaijani people? Its a small country far away about which we know nothing, and it appears you want to keep it that way. Rathfelder (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. We should seek a reasonable balance between having all articles in Category:Azerbaijani people versus diffusing into countless 1- or 2-member subcategories for every sub-specialty of every occupation (in this case: physicians → surgeons → orthopedic surgeons). Category:Surgeons and Category:Azerbaijani people both cover a lot of articles, so they should be fully diffused by nationality and occupation, respectively. Category:Orthopedic surgeons and Category:Azerbaijani surgeons both have significantly fewer articles (244 and 3, respectively), so they do not need to be fully diffused. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of these small categories have plenty of potential for growth. WP:SMALLCAT applies. Nothing is gained by selectively culling a category tree. Rathfelder (talk) 11:09, 5 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sculptures depicting Daniel to Category:Sculptures depicting Hebrew Bible prophets and Category:Daniel
Propose merging Category:Sculptures depicting Jonah to Category:Sculptures depicting Hebrew Bible prophets and Category:Jonah
Propose merging Category:Sculptures depicting Judith to Category:Sculptures depicting Old Testament figures, Category:Sculptures of women and Category:Judith in art

Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. Although Judith is in the deuterocanon rather than the Hebrew Bible (Protestant OT), it is not worth setting up a category for sculptures of people in the Deuterocanonical books, unless and until more notable examples have articles written about them. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 19 November 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: soft delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Neuro: Supernatural Detective (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 15 November 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: soft delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Tantei Opera Milky Holmes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). When populating the category, the creator added several voice actor actress articles in order to pad the category out, but this isn't done on other anime related category. —Farix (t | c) 10:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 15 November 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.

November 15

Category:Professorships in pharmacology

Category:Clinical pharmacologists

Category:Hospice

Category:Palliative medicine

Category:World sports champions

Category:Law enforcement in The Gambia

Category:Love & Hip Hop cast members

Category:The Real Housewives cast members

Category:Eye surgeons

Category:Argentinian electronic musicians

Category:British military physicians

Orthopedic surgeons

Category:Sculptures depicting Daniel

Category:Neuro: Supernatural Detective

Category:Tantei Opera Milky Holmes