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 10:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Johnny English to Category:Johnny English films‎

Nominator's rationale: I think this is the result of an inexperienced editor but I'm not entirely sure. These should probably be merged since this substantially duplicate their content. (It might be reasonable to outright delete them as SMALLCAT, but I don't see a pressing need for such.) Izno (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- I take it this is a film franchise, not a real person. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 27 July 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: Rename. Timrollpickering 10:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Arctic birds to Category:Birds of the Arctic
• Propose renaming Category:Antarctic birds to Category:Birds of Antarctica
• Propose renaming Category:Arctic freshwater fish to Category:Freshwater fish of the Arctic
• Propose renaming Category:Arctic cetaceans to Category:Cetaceans of the Arctic Ocean
• Propose renaming Category:Arctic pinnipeds to Category:Pinnipeds of the Arctic Ocean

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories such as Category:Birds of Africa, Category:Fish of Antarctica and Category:Fish of the Arctic Ocean. DexDor ^(talk) 19:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it is more formal and encyclopedic in tone to refer to "Foo of Bar" topics than "Bar Foo" topics. I am not sure that "Ocean" is necessary for pinnipeds, however, as they are merely semi-aquatic. bd2412 T 19:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnipeds (seals) live only in or very near the ocean so I've proposed consistency with cetaceans rather than consistency with birds. DexDor ^(talk) 19:35, 30 July 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 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:SuperSoul100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Promotion of a non-notable award. Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no article SuperSoul100. Oculi (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is not of encyclopedic interest. It is trivia, and has caused its originator to spam numerous articles with links to Oprah Winfrey's website, adding the trivial information that the person was named as influential by Winfrey. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining aspect of the individuals added to the category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale re: category creation -- I became interested in the group of people who comprise this category after happening upon and reading several Wikipedia biography articles where the award/honor was mentioned. As usual, that piqued my interest and inspired me to read further, on Wikipedia and beyond. I thought it was quite interesting that the people selected to SuperSoul 100^[1][2] represented diversity in talent/experience, contribution, nationality, age, etc. ... yet, there were few opportunities for me - or another reader - to easily make the connection between these interesting people. For that reason, I created the new category for persons who had been named to the group, and began populating the category. If the award is not appropriate for a stand-alone Wikipedia category, I understand and support the decision to remove it. On the other hand, if (as was the case when I came across the information) the award is mentioned in the content section and/or infobox fields of biography articles and the mention of the award/honor there is acceptable, I would like to suggest that the newly formed category remain so that interested readers (of which I was/am one) have the opportunity to easily make the connection and click-to-read about other people who have been named to the group. As a relatively new Wikipedia editor with only a few years experience, I would like to offer a sincere apology to Mr/Ms Silvers (Ssilvers) since he/she perceived my effort in grouping these individuals to be "spamming", and as such, I have clearly caused offense to this user; now, and at any time, I would like to say that I welcome all constructive comments, criticism, and/or discussion, and respect whichever decision is made on this topic and others. Laatu (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 27 July 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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering 19:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Holocaust books to Category:Books about the Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: To match Category:Novels about the Holocaust, Category:Books about atheism, etc. Catrìona (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency with other categories ("books about <topic>"). GregorB (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 26 July 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: Kept. Timrollpickering 10:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish concentration camp survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: "mostly overlapping categories" and "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation." We don't have categories for female concentration camp survivors, male concentration camp survivors, or Polish concentration camp survivors. Anyone in this category will already be identified as Jewish from other categories that they're in. Catrìona (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If we take a look at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, a number of "types of categories that should generally be avoided" are listed. Which one is "Jewish concentration camp survivors"? GregorB (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, defining subcategory of Category:Jewish people of World War II. The comparison with "male" or "Polish" does not keep the specific circumstances into account. If not kept, it should at least be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if that's the rationale, I would think it would be better at a lower level category, perhaps Category :Jewish Holocaust survivors or similar. As it is, it excludes Hidden children, those who survived various ghettos and massacres, those who fled, and other types of Holocaust survivors. Catrìona (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category :Jewish Holocaust survivors could potentially become an extra layer in between, provided that someone cares about populating that layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for the good reasons mentioned above, this category is a good fit in its parent category and it is certainly a good tool for navigation to the underlying articles--the purpose of categories--which would be lost by the suggested deletion. Hmains (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors has 44 subcats (mostly for particular camps) and over 200 bio-articles. That is big enough to merit splitting. Category:Polish concentration camp survivors and Category:Gypsy concentration camp survivors (and a few more) would be welcome sibling categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It stretches credulity to assert that the intersection of concentration camp people and Jewish people is among "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Carlossuarez46. It seems clear that "Jewish" and "concentration camp survivors" count as a "notable intersection". From WP:OCEGRS: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." SarahSV ^(talk) 15:31, 28 July 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 10:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mauthausen concentration camp prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category :Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp survivors‎ and Category:People who died in Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, empty Catrìona (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't those two be parented by something akin to Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp prisoners, like we have for Category:Auschwitz concentration camp prisoners which contains two subcats, 1 for survivors and 1 for those who died? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think that would be very helpful, because both categories are already in Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. Catrìona (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this could potentially become a container category with two subcategories, but that is not very helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 26 July 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 11:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Olympic movement to Category:Olympic Games

Nominator's rationale: merge, not a clear distinction with the parent category. We do not have an article Olympic movement either, except as a redirect to International Olympic Committee. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 July 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 but no rename. The target category was not tagged so will need to be nominated separately, probably through WP:CSD. Timrollpickering 11:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Stations on the Nanjing–Hangzhou Passenger Railway to Category:Stations on the Nanjing–Hangzhou High-Speed Railway

Nominator's rationale: Nanjing–Hangzhou Passenger Railway redirects to Nanjing–Hangzhou high-speed railway.

And rename the target category to use lowercase for HSR. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:38, 26 July 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 11:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization of a band or project as the only article within this category per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. Catrìona (talk) 15:47, 26 July 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 11:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Plenty of precedent to suggest this isn't a necessary category as per WP:OCEPON with only one subcategory and a navbox template beyond the main article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:58, 26 July 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 11:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Golden Party Badge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEF -- Non-defining category, as none of the subjects are notable for having received this decoration. The category has been previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_5#Category:Recipients_of_the_Golden_Party_Badge. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. A nondefining category for an obscure award from a political party that no longer exists. Catrìona (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCAWARD, though Nazi party was not obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given to the first 100,000 people who signed membership cards to the Nazi party. Not even close to defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:56, 29 July 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: split and merge as nominated. ℯxplicit 05:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:9th-century German people to Category:People of the Carolingian Empire and Category:9th-century people from East Francia
• Propose merging Category:9th-century German women to Category:Women of the Carolingian Empire (and add articles to Category:9th-century people from East Francia if appropriate)
• Propose merging Category:9th-century German writers to Category:Writers of the Carolingian Empire (and add articles to Category:9th-century people from East Francia if appropriate)

Nominator's rationale: split/merge since there aren't any 9th-century people who are known as German people. The current territory of Germany was part of the much bigger Carolingian Empire of which East Francia was a later subdivision (which eventually in 962 became the Holy Roman Empire). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As a bad an idea as the others! Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Part of a comprehensive scheme to eliminate these ahistorical inaccuracies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or rename as necessary substituting from East Francia for German. Each (except writers) have at least 5 members, which is enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom - the nationality of the peoples was either Carolingian or Francian at the time; the peoples themselves were not ethnically unified as German peoples yet. Therefore, the split is a must; keep the original category as disambig category.GreyShark (dibra) 06:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support you can't have German people before Germany existed. Also keep original category as disambig category per Greyshark09. Agathoclea (talk) 10:43, 6 August 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.