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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in Rundu

Nominator's rationale: Category not developed enough to justify category. spatms (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, this should be merged to Category:Rundu. User:spatms, I hope you will look over your own history of creating tiny categories and merge/delete some of them as well.--TM 14:11, 12 June 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 category. For anyone who desires to create a list article (e.g. User:Fayenatic london), these are the articles that were in the category: The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy), Bridge (song), De Brug van Willebroek, Goin' Back to the Bridge, London Bridge (Fergie song), London Bridge Is Falling Down, Sur le Pont d'Avignon. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category was deleted per consensus following a CfD in December 2011. Recreated but since consensus can change, I thought I'd put this nominate it for deletion again. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. That any of the songs are "about bridges" is questionable because the use of a bridge's name in the title is often incidental. For example, I would say that Sous le Pont d'Avignon is a song about dancing. I would think that a category like this will invite misuse. It is in fact a category for song titles that include the word bridge (or pont). Izzat Kutebar (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify, i.e. convert to List of songs about bridges (like e.g. List of songs about bicycles), where the meaning can be documented. Bridges may be used to symbolise significant themes such as peace between divided people. – Fayenatic London 07:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or metaphorically, as in Bridge Over Troubled Water which isn't in the category. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • As for sources: Ranker may not count as WP:RS. this Guardian article is, and says that song "couldn't not be here", although an editor has just removed it from the category again for being only metaphorical. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous CfD. Mention of a bridge is NOT defining. Also opposed to listify unless a scholarly reason for the list is given, again, not just a list of songs that happen to mention a bridge as a literary device! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:53, 9 June 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. Although no other editors have expressed support, the nomination seems valid, and the target name conforms better with sibling categories. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Generation ship fiction to Category:Generation ships in fiction

Nominator's rationale: No evidence that reliable sources group this as a genre by this name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 8 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages created by blocked or banned users

Nominator's rationale: Similar rationale to the A10 category at the bottom of this page. Also, G5 (this one) and A10 are the only CSDs whose categories do not end with a noun phrase. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems pointless. I promise you no admin who uses this maintenance category cares about the name. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as completely unnecessary and to avoid breaking lots of links and templates and watchlists. ansh666 20:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't really see the point of this as you will never type "Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users" into the search bar. You always type "CAT:G5". Renaming would break a lot of links. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:13, 13 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sports in Fridley, Minnesota to Category:Fridley, Minnesota

Nominator's rationale: Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Fridley, Minnesota is a city of around 27000, there are many sport teams, venues and events for growing this category! Mircea (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other sports related articles in the town category.--TM 12:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• obvious delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Mangoe (talk) 12:13, 11 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sports in Highland, California to Category:Highland, California

Nominator's rationale: Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:42, 8 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sports in Cypress, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:40, 8 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Cypress, California to Category:Sports venues in Orange County, California

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Cypress, California. Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:39, 8 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sports in Harwich, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:37, 8 June 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) 18:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Baseball in Harwich, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:36, 8 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Baseball teams in Harwich, Massachusetts to Category:Baseball teams in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Category:Sports teams in Harwich, Massachusetts will be emptied by this action. As Harwich, Massachusetts is a town of around 12000, support this and the two above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:40, 8 June 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/Merge/Rename. Timrollpickering 00:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Scotland by order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Austria by order‎
• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Belgium by order‎
• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in France by order‎
• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Germany by order‎
• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Italy by order‎
• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Spain by order‎
• Propose deleting Category:Christian monasteries in Norway by order
• Propose deleting Category:Christian monasteries in Portugal by order‎
• Propose deleting Category:Christian monasteries in the United States by order‎

Added on relisting:

• Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in the United Kingdom by order (duplicates Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in the United Kingdom)
• Propose merging Category:Monasteries in Wales by order to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Wales
• Propose renaming Category:Monasteries in England by order to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in England

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, Category:Monasteries in Scotland by order is a duplicate of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Scotland. Similarly for the other categories. Note that they are subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by order (my italic). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While at it, would also propose letting go of the depricated "Roman" disambiguator in the final destinations per WP:CONSISTENCY with Catholic religious order, and Category:Catholic orders and societies. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing the Roman epithet, even though unperfect, makes it very hard to maintain a coherent category tree for Eastern Catholic topics. Place Clichy (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although a minority sometimes advocate that "Roman Catholic" = Latin Church (including in categories), this preposition has generally been refuted throughout talk pages. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and instead delete the "Roman Catholic" ones, due to potential Anglican/Episcopalian foundations (not so much outwith Scotland – but we might as well have consistency everywhere).--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't quite see the logic of that for the above countries. Deletion of the Roman Catholic categories would remove the content from Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by country but keep them in Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by order. That sounds pretty inconsistent as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• support I don't think there's any place where there are enough Anglican establishments to support a break out by country and order, so the "by order" cats only make sense in the (Roman) Catholic substructure, and we already have the right parent cats for that. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- For Scotland, I would suggest Category:Pre-reformation monasteries in Scotland by order. purging any later ones; presumably likewise Norway. In Germany, it may be necessary to split Catholic and Lutheran orders. Austria, Belgium France Spain and Italy are majority Catholic countries so that a RC category is redundant. I have no clear view on US, but suspect Category:Catholic monasteries in the United States by order‎ would be a useful target. Splitting them by order is useful, but we do not need multiple layers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A rename of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Scotland can be discussed in a fresh nomination. I am not aware of the existence of Lutheran monasteries and for sure we do not have categories by order for them. Diffusing the US category shouldn't be part of this discussion either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to @Marcocapelle: this nomination seems incomplete; should it be relisted with at least Category:Monasteries in the United Kingdom by order for merging to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in the United Kingdom, Category:Monasteries in Wales by order to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Wales, and Category:Monasteries in England by order for renaming to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in England? – Fayenatic London 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: Probably yes. There may have been a reason why I omitted these from the nomination, but I cannot recall why. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: these ought to have been listed for merging rather than deletion, as a few of the sub-cats were missing from the Roman Catholic ones; however, those omissions have now been corrected, so merging from the "by order" categories would now have the same outcome as deletion. It's usually safer to list for "merge" than "delete", though, in case anyone changes the contents during the discussion. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• REverse merge The RC category Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in England by order (or whatever we have for this) should be merged to Category:Monasteries in England by order, etc. The vast majority of these will be pre-Reformation (i.e. pre-Dissolution, pre-1539), when there was only one Christian denomination in England, so that RC is redundant. There will be a small number of 19th century and later RC monasteries and I think Anglican ones, which probably need separate trees for modern monasteries. There were no monasteries between 1539 and mid/late 19th century, so that combining medieval and modern in a single tree is undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This reasoning does not apply to France/Italy/Germany/Spain/Austria etc. cats which are also nominated. Place Clichy (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in XXX by order. Classification by monastic order makes very much sense, at least for Catholic monasteries and maybe for other faiths as well. It is a defining characteristic. Moving the content, when applicable, to an intersecting subcategory would solve the duplication issue. It would also allow a better categorisation for monasteries which either are not Catholic, or Roman Catholic, or who do not yet have a by order category created for them. Place Clichy (talk) 13:34, 23 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bronze Age sites in Greece to Category:Aegean sites in the Bronze Age

Nominator's rationale: Having Greece in the title is incorrect because the subject covers the wider Aegean world and the parent category is Category:Aegean civilizations. At the time, Greece as such was the mainland (the Helladic region) only. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Greece refers to the modern country, as is standard practice for archaeological/historic site categories. See related cats Category:Archaeological sites in Greece by period and Category:Archaeological sites by country. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Joe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Joe. This is a geographical category. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. I accept Joe's reasoning. Sorry for inconvenience caused. Thank you, Joe. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a geographic category. It would also remove archaeological sites located in the Ionian Sea, rather than the Aegean Sea. Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 12 June 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 to :Category:Aegean art of the Bronze Age. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bronze Age Greek art to Category:Aegean art in the Bronze Age

Nominator's rationale: Having Greek in the title is incorrect because the subject covers the wider Aegean world and the parent category is Category:Aegean civilizations. At the time, Greece as such was the mainland (the Helladic region) only. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aegean art of the Bronze Age or Category:Aegean Bronze Age art would be better I think, as with the next one. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Could support Category:Bronze Age art in Greece instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's worse than the present cat, since quite a bit is now in museums elsewhere, like the Minoan Bull-leaper (London) and the sarcophagus in Hanover. "National art in Country" categories are a nightmare, & best avoided at a high level. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Will accept either of Johnbod's alternatives instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As below, I would prefer Category:Aegean art of the Bronze Age. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 10:35, 12 June 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 to Category:Aegean palaces of the Bronze Age. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bronze Age palaces in Greece to Category:Aegean palaces in the Bronze Age

Nominator's rationale: Having Greece in the title is incorrect because the subject covers the wider Aegean world and the parent category is Category:Aegean civilizations. At the time, Greece as such was the mainland (the Helladic region) only. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aegean palaces of the Bronze Age or Category:Aegean Bronze Age palaces would be better I think, as with the last one. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer Category:Aegean palaces of the Bronze Age from Johnbod's alternatives. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 10:33, 12 June 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) 19:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:41, 8 June 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) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 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) 19:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 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. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with William Blake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- the scholarship on Blake's acquaintances, and circle of community members is very well established. The roles these folks play are widely variable, because Blake, and his biography, defy a lot of different conventional classification system. Shifting folks to subcategories when appropriate (i.e in the case of Blake scholars) seems the best tactic for this space. Sadads (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An association is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Notability isn't inherited. --woodensuperman 14:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodensuperman: Actually for many of the folks in the category, it is: we wouldn't know about the people or artists groups like Ancients (art group), if they weren't caught up in the general craze to document everything associated with Blake, Sadads (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for some people, these subjects are useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Agree with Johnbod: this type of category is helpful to some readers. Silly to deprive them of it. Tim riley talk 20:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would retain the category; many readers have found it useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guideline, unless a good reason is provided why we would deviate from the guideline for this particular category (and I haven't seen a good reason yet). Move the subcategory directly under Category:William Blake. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 9 June 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 14:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with James Joyce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is the scholarship on Joyce, has an overabundence of reflection on, and engagement with his acquaintances -- like Blake and Shakespeare, he is going to be one of the exceptions to challenge the rule in most cases. Sadads (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for some people, these subjects are useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Agree with Johnbod: this type of category is helpful to some readers. Silly to deprive them of it. Tim riley talk 20:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that this category is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As explicity stated at WP:OCASSOC, it is impossible to select objective inclusion criteria for this type of category without violating WP:ARBITRARYCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guideline, unless a good reason is provided why we would deviate from the guideline for this particular category (and I haven't seen a good reason yet). Move the subcategory directly under Category:James Joyce. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's no end to the borders of "associated". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 9 June 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. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Shakespeare is somewhat unique in that there is an almost absurd amount of reliable sources on anything associated with him (i.e. the "associated" part is the only sane categorization based on the reliable sources). Take Ben Jonson, who would disappear out of the category tree below Category:William Shakespeare without the ability to say he is associated with Shakespeare. Unlike William Kempe, Jonson wasn't a Category:Shakespearean actors, or a member or sharer in Category:King's Men (playing company), and so forth. But every biography of Shakespeare (of which there are an absurd number) will at least mention Jonson in various contexts (influences between the two men's works, in either direction; biographical intersections, social, financial, political; Johnson's contribution to Shakespeare's postumous reputation; and probably a bunch more if you go looking). The same sort of thing will hold for all the other entries in this category that do not obviously fall within the other subcategories (Emilia Lanier, Robert Chester (poet), and Leonard Digges (writer) being the three first that jumped out at me). --Xover (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jonson is not defined by his association with Shakespeare, therefore shouldn't be in his category tree. --woodensuperman 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonson is, in fact, in addition to his independent notability, a sub-topic within Shakespearean studies, as explained above, and biographers of one will normally refer to the other in various ways (e.g. Jonson defined as "a contemporary of / influence on / influenced by / etc. … Shakespeare). But that's neither here nor there, as that wasn't my argument. --Xover (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is per @Xover: Sadads (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept, it should be moved to Category:People associated with William Shakespeare to avoid any confusion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: While I wouldn't bother arguing against such a move, I'll make the general note that I find adding the given name here is an example of excessive specificity (ala. the reasoning of WP:COMMONNAME). Nobody is going to see a bare "Shakespeare" and assume we're referring to fishing equipment or ghost towns in New Mexico. The urge to impose symmetry, with other categories that do need the full name, is strong, but in some cases it would best be resisted. --Xover (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Xover. Adding the Bard's first name would be otiose, bordering on silly. Tim riley talk 21:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late in replying to @Xover: and @Tim riley:, but the main category is Category:William Shakespeare and subcats are in the same structure, such as Category:Plays by William Shakespeare. Plus the main article is at William Shakespeare and not simply Shakespeare. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I hope it won't arise, even so. Tim riley talk 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for some people, these subjects are useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Comment. I created this in order to thin out Category:William Shakespeare a little. I don't think it's overly full or marked by overly tenuous connections. I could theoretically support deletion if everything that needed to be categorized in a more specific way was thus categorized (actors in Shakespeare's companies, writers of documents that provide evidence of Shakespeare's life and work, collaborators of Shakespeare, printers and editors of Shakespeare, and more!) but ultimately that doesn't seem likely to happen. Ben Jonson seems to be one of the few people in the category who isn't best known for his connection to Shakespeare. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Agree with Johnbod: this type of category is helpful to some readers. Silly to deprive them of it. Tim riley talk 20:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would retain the category; many readers have found it useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the subcats immediately under Category:William Shakespeare and delete the remainder per guideline, unless a good reason is provided why we would deviate from the guideline for this particular category (and I haven't seen a good reason yet). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's no end to the borders of "associated". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Category:People associated with William Shakespeare, but purge. I accept that we do not like ASSOCIATED WITH categories as there is no boundary. Having sampled the content, a good many of the articles would be better in a category relating to the theatrical companies to which Shakespeare was the playwright. This is different from Shakespearean actors, which seems to be an WP:PERFormance category for actors who perform Shakespearean plays (and perhaps ought not to be allowed). This may leave "people suggested as authors of Shakespeare's plays" and a few more. In other words, my objective would be to make this (as much as possible) into a container category. Ultimately the object should be to get something with sufficiently few articles directly categorised that we can merge it back to Category:William Shakespeare without cluttering that up. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 13 June 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: no consensus. The late suggestion by Peterkingiron to split the category might be worth a fresh discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for some people, these subjects are useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an essential category for readers interested in Gilbert and Sullivan and Victorian theatre in general. W. S. Gilbert was the leading Victorian dramatist, and Arthur Sullivan was the leading Victorian composer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Very surprised to see this category suggested for removal. Decidedly useful in pulling together articles that might otherwise seem unrelated in some cases, and I agree with the comments from Johnbod and Ssilvers. Tim riley talk 19:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an important category. Jack1956 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guideline, unless a good reason is provided why we would deviate from the guideline for this particular category (and I haven't seen a good reason yet). Move the subcat immediately under Category:Gilbert and Sullivan. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's no end to the borders of "associated". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and purge -- On sampling I found people associated with the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company; actors who have performed G&S (for whom there is a subcat already), a person involved with G&S recordings, and a few whose connection was tenuous (which is why we have the WP:OCASSOC guideline. I would hope that when a few new subcats have bene created, this can be merged back to the main G&S category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 13 June 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. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with Charles Bukowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC. --woodensuperman 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's no end to the borders of "associated". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:48, 9 June 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) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Philip José Farmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The bio-article will make a main article for the subcat. Do not upmerge, as Amercan male writers is too large to be useful and the bio should be in the more specific category, while the subcat is in a specific works category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 13 June 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) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The bio-article will make a main article for the subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 13 June 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) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the content is a bio and his theory. 2 articles is too small. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 13 June 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) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. --woodensuperman 12:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The bio-article will make a main article for the subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 13 June 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) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:John D. MacDonald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Containing categories have their own trees. --woodensuperman 11:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know about WP:OCEPON at the time. I'd looked at Category:American male writers as a whole to see if there is a practice of creating the authors' categories (and then, yep, erroneously added to the newly created category not the "Writers" but its subcategory American male novelists). According to WP:OCEPON: "Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist". I suppose that the categories mentioning the person in their names are related to them pretty directly. However, if two subcategories is not enough, I don't object to the deletion. --INS Pirat (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is not the classic case because there are two subcats. "Films based on works" can go under "works", which leaves only the bio-article will make a main article for the "works" subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 13 June 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 23:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as duplicating an existing topic to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as duplicate articles

Nominator's rationale: A much more concise name than current. Agrees with the parent category Category:Duplicate articles and the listing at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Sensible course of action. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as completely unnecessary and to avoid breaking lots of links and templates and watchlists. ansh666 20:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment: I had closed this discussion as 'no consensus' but re-opened it per this request. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. User:ansh666's concern is misplaced, as most links can be updated with a single edit to Template:CSD-categories. Editors with the category on their watchlist should see its deletion on their watchlist, and be able to find a link to this discussion in order to watch the new name. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 18 June 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.