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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for convenience, the discussion area is a separate section below: Discussion (sports fans)

(this listing section is huge, and there's no point in loading it into your edit box)

Propose renaming per the parent Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport:

Nominator's rationale: Grammar correction SportsFan007 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

Discussion (Sports Team Catagories)[edit]

add your support/oppose/comment here

• Comment - Don't most (all?) of these qualify for speedy renames as uncontroversial? I certainly don't foresee any pushback. VegaDark (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. These are grammatical fixes, but I think that @VegaDark is wrong to suggest speedy. The closest speedy criterion is WP:C2A, but it is only for spelling or typograohical fixes; this is a grammatical fix.

@SportsFan007 note that at least two of the categories have already been renamed to used "the", and should be struck from the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 15 December 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: speedy keep. Keep per WP:SNOW, and also the filer is a block-evading sockpuppet who has been removing pages from this category. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Far-right politics in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant. Only has and most likely will ever have only 2 pages, why are already included in sub-cats. 49.180.135.233 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, part of an established series Category:Far-right politics by country, and meanwhile the category has become better-populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Marcocapelle. Hmains (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I suddenly realize we've had the same discussion not too long ago. @Ivanvector: notifying closer of previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 15 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Unusual deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary and trivial classification with no clear criteria. Category includes biographies, methods of dying (Death by coconut, Water intoxication), and events (Dyatlov Pass incident, London Beer Flood, Death of Kendrick Johnson). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This category compliments the main article: List of unusual deaths which is already a very lengthy article. The criteria for this category is that it is provides a glue & quick link to articles referenced the main article . I believe that this category should only be deleted if List of unusual deaths is also deleted. Powerslide (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Define "unusual", because it seems rather arbitrary to me. In the Murder of Gregory Glen Biggs, Biggs was seriously injured by the killer's automobile, was held captive by the killer for a couple of days, and died either due to the lack of medical aid or due to starvation and dehydration. (The killer never bothered to offer him food or drink). For all the creepy details in the Black Dahlia murder, the victim is thought to have died after a beating. Most of the mutilations and other injuries were post-mortem. In the Death of Brittanie Cecil, the manner in which she was injured was unusual, but the cause of death was not: a torn vertebral artery. In the Dyatlov Pass incident, most of the casualties died of hypothermia, and the main puzzle is what caused rather extensive injuries to three of them. The report of the incident has left it unclear which of these injuries occured while they were alive and which were post-mortem ones. Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. The existing list should suffice, having enough details to clarify. Brandmeister^talk 09:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some of these folks are primarily or only notable because of their deaths or more accurately, the circumstances of their deaths, but we don't have people only notable for how they died. That said, "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder therefore SUBJ and OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 18 December 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: keep, without prejudice to a wider discussion of Category:Nonviolence organizations/Category:Peace organizations. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nonviolence organizations based in Greece to Category:Peace organisations based in Greece

Nominator's rationale: The Peace organisations category heirarchy is better populated. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Category:Nonviolence organizations by country has 8 subcats, and the nominator @Rathfelder gives no rationale for merging only one while leaving the rest in place.

There may be a case for merging all the subcats of Category:Nonviolence organizations by country, but that is not the proposal before here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was contemplating doing just that, so I would like to know whether people think there is a useful distinction between nonviolence organisations and peace organisations and whether we should merge the whole category trees. The Greek category only has one entry, which is actually an ecology organisation, so it could be emptied. Rathfelder (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The non-violence, peace and ecology categories overlap to some extent, but while they are closely-related, they are distinct. In this case, Ecological Movement of Thessaloniki appears to fit in all three, but not all organisations in any one of the categories will belong in the other two.

Not all organisations working for peace endorse a philosopy of non-violence, so I'd oppose a wider merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 15 December 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, without prejudice against revisiting if/when there are more articles. However, I would suggest that it may be more appropriate to make the Basque connection via a subject-matter-based category (e.g. Category:Basque conflict or a subcategory) rather than a location-based category, especially as we do not generally categorize organizations by cultural region. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nonviolence organizations based in Basque Country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, which is already in Category:Nonviolence organizations based in France‎. Rathfelder (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, I've already added the article to Category:Northern Basque Country. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It holds true that it needs further articles, but the Basque case has its own specific circumstances and history that do not have anything to with namesake organizations of other territories in the French category, say, Picardie or Normandie. The Basque WP, for instance, shows a good number of related articles included in the category, and at least three of them meet the Notability guidelines established for EN WP (RS media coverage, for one). Iñaki LL (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good reason to have the article in Category:Northern Basque Country. And so it is now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me disagree. Northern Basque Country is a generic geographic, cultural area and/or administrative jurisdiction. It is only loosely related, by association, to the topic addressed in Category:Nonviolence organizations based in Basque Country. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you happier to have it in Category:Organizations based in Northern Basque Country, which I've just created? There are not enough articles about such organisations at present, to subdivide it further - and indeed we dont generally subdivide the categories for regions/states within any countries by subject.Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I added this afternoon a new article about Ahotsak a women's platform for peace in the Basque Country created in March 2006. I plan to translate from Basque the articles related to eu:Lokarri (gizarte mugimendua) and eu:Elkarri. All the four articles are significant references for the peace process in the Basque Country.Ksarasola (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As not aiding navigation. No objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2019 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Peace and reconciliation ministries to Category:Peace organizations

Nominator's rationale: "Ministry" is ambiguous. Half the articles are religious organisations, the other half government ministries. I dont think the category can be rescued. Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 15 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Crimean Tatar peace activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: one entry. We dont characterize activists by ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Initially I thought this ought to be merged to Category:Crimean Tatar activists, however the one article in this category is about someone who was active in Romania and he was not advocating the Crimean Tatar cause in particular. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another by ethnicity category without any indication that the intersection is notable; fails WP:CATEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tatar peace activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry (the same as above). We dont categorise activists by ethnicity. Rathfelder (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as nominator indicates, the only article is already in the Crimean Tatar category that is discussed above. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another by ethnicity category without any indication that the intersection is notable; fails WP:CATEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem like a useful category, and it's not clear what or who should be included. Marquardtika (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I had expected more articles about the topic of millennials would exist, but a category with Avocado toast is not worth keeping. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category scope is unclear. Demographers Strauss and Howe who coined the term, defined the generation as including people born between 1982 and 2004. Other sources have redefined the date range, offering a variety of year-ranges. On a personal comment, I am rather surprised by the date ranges used in these definitions of cultural generations. Based on them, I would belong to a different cultural generation than my older brother (who is only 8 years older than me), but I would belong to the same generation with my nieces. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we shouldn't include things like Category:1990 births here, and there's really nothing else beyond just the article on Millenials (and, avocado toast, which is just bad). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 18 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:New Zealand first-class cricketers of South African origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not sure this is a WP:DEFINING attribute to anyone in the category. Playing a certain format of cricket (not Twenty20 or List A, but just first-class) in New Zealand when the person was born in another country seems like WP:OVERCAT to me Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining, the defining characteristics would be New Zealand cricketer & New Zealand expats from South Africa. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed. StickyWicket (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an "origin" (as that descent? or something else?) category without any indication what it covers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Anglican church buildings in Halifax, Nova Scotia to Category:Churches in Halifax, Nova Scotia‎ and Category:Anglican church buildings in Nova Scotia
• Propose merging Category:Anglican church buildings in Hamilton, Ontario to Category:Churches in Hamilton, Ontario‎ and Category:Anglican church buildings in Ontario
• Propose merging Category:Anglican church buildings in Jerusalem to Category:Protestant churches in Jerusalem‎ and Category:Anglican church buildings in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Baptist churches in Adelaide to Category:Churches in Adelaide‎ and Category:Baptist churches in Australia
• Propose merging Category:Baptist churches in Birmingham, West Midlands to Category:Churches in Birmingham, West Midlands‎ and Category:Baptist churches in England
• Propose merging Category:Baptist churches in Brisbane to Category:Churches in Brisbane‎ and Category:Baptist churches in Australia
• Propose merging Category:Baptist churches in Nashville, Tennessee to Category:Churches in Nashville, Tennessee‎ and Category:Baptist churches in Tennessee
• Propose merging Category:Baptist churches in Perth, Western Australia to Category:Churches in Perth, Western Australia‎ and Category:Baptist churches in Australia
• Propose merging Category:Baptist churches in Sydney to Category:Churches in Sydney‎ and Category:Baptist churches in Australia
• Propose merging Category:Congregational churches in Detroit to Category:Churches in Detroit‎ and Category:Congregational churches in Michigan
• Propose merging Category:Congregational churches in Liverpool to Category:Churches in Liverpool‎ and Category:Congregational churches in Merseyside

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Tiny categories, with little scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the Brisbane ones at least. As it says in WP:SMALLCAT, "with no potential for growth". For this reason alone, I don't think these should be put forward as a group as clearly the circumstances will differ from place to place. Are there really no more notable churches of that particular denomination in those cities? The situation with these categories is very different to the examples given in WP:SMALLCAT which deal with highly specific categories (and incidentally all of their examples still exist as categories). I cannot speak for all the cities on the list having not done the research, but for Brisbane, a city for which I do write articles about heritage-listed churches, there are a lot of articles that could be written. Given that it was evident that the growth potential was not considered for Brisbane, I am guessing it was not considered for any of the cities. I suggest that be done before discussing deletion. 07:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Please note that we usually do not delete categories forever (unless they are salted). If at some point in time Brisbane has more than a handful of churches per denomination we can simply recreate the category. I'm looking forward to see your new articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom most of these are minority denominations in these places, and, furthermore, they generally don't go in for grand buildings so there will never be many articles about their churches. If, in any of these places, that is not true they could come out of the list. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support It is time to stop arguing "potential for growth" when no where near all Church buildings are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2019 (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. I will list this at WP:CFD/W/M in case some of the content needs to be recategorized first. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Conceptions of God in popular media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The only edit of the creator; no inclusion criteria, a clear invitation to conduct original research. Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no, this is not original research. this is organizing what is out there--66.213.14.116 (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if this gets deleted, some of the category content should be moved to Category:God in fiction or to Category:God. (Request to closing admin: please add it to WP:CFDWM in that case.) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why are the Apocryphal Gospels under the "popular media" category? Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, I'll remove it right away. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if "popular media" means fiction this is covered by the God in fiction category; if not, pray tell what is does mean and how this helps navigation among like articles in our encyclopedia? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reasons behind this categorizing are very hard to justify at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2019 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Economic history of India (1947–90) to Category:Economic history of India (1947–present)‎
• Propose merging Category:Economic history of India (1991–present)‎ to Category:Economic history of India (1947–present)‎

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there is no major reason for a break in 1990. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 14 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Burma articles missing geocoordinate data to Category:Myanmar articles missing geocoordinate data.

Nominator's rationale: Currently "Myanmar" is a subcategory of "Burma", for reasons that escape me. As far as I know, it is not controversial that Burma and Myanmar are the same country. There are various historical categories on Wikipedia that use "Burma", but the convention seems to be that contemporary categories use "Myanmar". Kevinsam2 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• REverse merge -- Some time back WP decided that the country would be called Burma (or am I wrong?). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try clicking on Burma. It's a redirect to Myanmar. Kevinsam2 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: See Talk:Myanmar for the very long history of debate on this point. Current consensus is that we should use Myanmar. Kevinsam2 (talk) 07:38, 16 December 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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Fictional future people. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional future people to Category:Fictional characters from the future

Nominator's rationale: Future people is not a descriptive statement. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:53, 14 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional particle physicists to Category:Fictional physicists

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Tiny category. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 15 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional biophysicists to Category:Fictional physicists

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Tiny category. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 15 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional climatologists to Category:Fictional earth scientists

Nominator's rationale: Both are extremely small cats, so no need to separate them JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Tiny category. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 15 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters with osteogenesis imperfecta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No actual articles in category, just three redirects JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the nominator's reasoning A really paranoid android (talk) 16:25, 15 December 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional intelligence analysts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the nominator's reasoning A really paranoid android (talk) 16:25, 15 December 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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Paranormal genres. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Paranormal genres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Basically an empty category with just a subcat in it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:42, 14 December 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.