< November 12	November 14 >

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. While there is no clear consensus on having or not having a Florida-specific sex crimes topic category, there is consensus that this category should not exist. I will recategorize the contents based on the comments here (see list of edits) but ultimately leave it up to editorial judgment on categorizing individual articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note: Most of the articles were already in one or more other Florida-specific crime/law categories, so I mostly just removed the category and shifted some of the contents to Category:Sexuality in Florida. Again, feel free to recategorize individual articles if more appropriate categories exist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sex offenders in Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no basis to have state designated categories for sex offenders and no others exist. Each article listed in this category already has a sex-offense related category assigned, this one, focused on a state, is redundant and gives the impression that Florida has a unique problem with sex offenses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a sex offender registry. Also, WP:UNDUE concerns per nom. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m the one who created the category, here’s my rationale. Florida does have “a unique problem with sex offenders”. It’s not “just another state” with sex offenders.
- Florida has the harshest controls on sex offenders of any state.
- Florida has the second highest number of sex offenders of any state.
- Florida has 5% of the nation’s population, but 8% of the nation’s sex offenders.
- Florida has the largest number of sex offenders civilly committed. (References for both of these at Florida Civil Commitment Center.)
- Florida has the largest community of sex offenders in the United States: Miracle Village.
- Movies (documentaries) have been made (outside the U.S.) specifically about sex offenders in Florida. I am unaware of movies made about sex offenders of any other state.
- An off-Broadway play was produced in 2018 about the Miracle Village community: America Is Hard to See (play).
- Florida has in Miami the largest community of homeless sex offenders in the U.S.: Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony.

So that’s my case why Florida uniquely deserves this category. deisenbe (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point, I think if we are going to categorize sex offenders/sex crimes based in Florida to a category like this, then we should create similar categories for every state when it is appropriate. That's my point of view on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. deisenbe (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sex crimes in Florida per actual content of the category, most are topic articles. And consequently remove Category:American sex offenders and Category:Sex offender registries in the United States as parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REname and purge as necessary per Marcocapelle. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with renaming it sex crimes is that the items in the category are not sex crimes, they are sex criminals. I don’t see where “topic articles” are in it. deisenbe (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 out of 10 articles in this category are about a criminal. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purge (possibly moving some to a more appropriate category) (probably leaving just 2 articles) then delete (upmerging as necessary) ~~per SMALLCAT~~. Whether another category (with different name, contents and parents) should be created can be considered separately. DexDor^(talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: Shouldn't the other 8 articles stay within the tree of Category:Sexuality in Florida somehow? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them should (but not, for example, Florida Legislative Investigation Committee). I've amended my comment above. DexDor^(talk) 07:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is not renamed, this could be an alternative. Something needs to happen anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or alternatively purge and rename into a sex crimes or sex offender registries category. Only 2 out of 10 articles in this cat refer to individual offenders, and out of the other 8, 4 are already in Category:Sex offender registries in the United States which is the real topic. Place Clichy (talk) 14:06, 19 November 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 contents to Category:Dukes of Normandy and delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:17th-century Dukes of Normandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category will only ever contain one person and that person is neither a Frenchman nor a ruler of Normandy. Consequently, it can be upmerged to Category:Dukes of Normandy. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was a title in the peerage of France and was not even included in Category:Dukes of Normandy. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom without upmerging, because the one person in this category didn't actually rule Normandy, it was just a title. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To cover the history of the title across centuries. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; whether or not he actually ruled Normandy isn't particularly relevant, especially as Category:Dukes of Normandy (unlike the 17th-century category) isn't seemingly in the "European rulers" tree. But there's no reason, as far as I can see, to have this category or the 18th-century one: both have just one article each, there's no prospect for expansion, and the contents of the parent category demonstrate that deleting them would not break a totally-diffused-by-century situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "there's no prospect for expansion" Actually there is, but I was not certain how to handle it. Per main article Duke of Normandy the title is still used as a subsidiary title for British monarchs, in their role as rulers of the Channel Islands. Remember that the Islands are not officially part of the United Kingdom, and are still considered remnants of the Duchy of Normandy. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Along with the other categories for Dukes of Normandy by century (and, frankly, all other rulers too). How utterly pointless. There just aren't enough of them each century to warrant separate categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I frankly disagree. We have Category:Rulers by century for years now, but they are underpopulated because few people are actually working on them. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing wrong with Category:Rulers by century. But the subcategories for each title are overkill. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is plenty of wrong with them. They are nearly empty and missing hundreds of available articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is certainly a distinction between rulers and titles. This category is about a title. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dimadick: You're actually making a good case against by-century ruler categories rather than for them. If contributors are not even interested in them even when they're created, they serve no purpose. Place Clichy (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know about you, but I typically use the people by century categories to locate articles on any specific topic. Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 14:06, 19 November 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 23:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Equivalence classes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't have a coherent topic. For example, it groups Types of social scientists (a redirect) (but not, for example, Different types of toilets or List of types of fur) with articles such as Automata theory and Closed-form expression. It also has subcategories such as Category:Style and Category:Taxa and hence (incorrectly) puts thousands of articles in Category:Equivalence (mathematics). DexDor^(talk) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is too vague to be useful. The math-related topics can be merged to Equivalence (mathematics); the rest are completely useless. I've removed Category:Subfields by academic discipline as clearly inappropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The long explanation on the category page of what the category is supposed to contain is a signal that this is an unclear topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 24 November 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: WP:SOFTDELETE as there is currently insufficient content. – Fayenatic London 12:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Bunsen Is a Beast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category as only its main article as an entry with no other possible candidates. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:58, 13 November 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 there was insufficient participation to establish a binding precedent for future cases. – Fayenatic London 12:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Hezbollah propaganda organisations to Category:Hezbollah propaganda organizations
Rename Category:Marine engineering organisations to Category:Marine engineering organizations
Rename Category:Materials science organisations to Category:Materials science organizations
Rename Category:Public speaking organisations to Category:Public speaking organizations
Rename Category:Public transport advocacy organisations to Category:Public transport advocacy organizations
Rename Category:Road transport organisations to Category:Road transport organizations
Rename Category:Safety engineering organisations to Category:Safety engineering organizations
Rename Category:Space science organisations to Category:Space science organizations

These categories with global remit were all created by the prolific @Rathfelder: using UK English; see ((UKian)). A switch to Oxford English - see ((British English Oxford spelling)) - would harmonise these with American usage and improve consistency in the category tree above the ‘country’ level. (These are the last global ones with 's' by Rathfelder, unless I have missed some.) Oculi (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support all these. Can we agree that all the organizational categories not linked to countries should be spelled with a z? Rathfelder

I've signed this post for Rathfelder, who forgot to sign. SineBot must be on strike. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency, most Organizations categories above the country level are with a z. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 15 November 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, also to other parent Category:Regulations by political parties as no rationale was given for excluding that one. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Regulations of the Communist Party of China to Category:Organization of the Communist Party of China

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Not likely to be any more Rathfelder (talk) 15:52, 13 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to convert to WikiProject tracking categories on talk pages or delete

Category:NRHP architects
Category:NRHP builders
Category:NRHP engineers
Category:NRHP artists

Nominator's rationale. These are all hidden categories, but they don't meet either WP:DEFINING or WP:HIDDENCAT. So they should be ~~converted to WikiProject tracking categories on the talk page, or~~ deleted. ~~(I prefer conversion).~~

Per WP:HIDDENCAT, hidden categories are a way of shielding readers from administrative categories. However, these categories serve no administrative purpose, and I have seen nothing in any guideline to suggest that hiding is some sort of means of making an inappropriate category acceptable.

Some background will help to clarify the options. All 4 were created by @Doncram, with ((Wikipedia category|hidden=yes)) to hide them. The first three were created in 2011, and on 6 July 2012 Doncram unhid all three: [1], [2], [3]. A few hours later, @Orlady nominated all three at WP:CFD 2012 July 6 for renaming to a more verbose form: "Fooers of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places".

That discussion considered the merits of the proposed new names, but 5 of the 10 editors who made a !vote favoured deletion. After some suggestions to re-hide as a solution, Doncram re-hid all three categories, and the discussion was closed by admin @Mike Selinker: as problem addressed by hiding categories. This can be reopened if anyone thinks the problem hasn't been addressed this way".

The 4th category nominated is Category:NRHP artists, which was created by Doncram in December 2017‎, clearly in the spirit of the other CFD decision on the first 3.

I don't think the problem has been resolved, which is why I am re-opening this issue.

My bottom line here is that WP:HIDDENCAT should be used only for administrative purposes, i.e. attributes of the en.wp page rather than attibutes of the topic. (Those attributes of the page which will be mostly for tracking pages in need of attention or monitoring types of content.) If we start allowing HIDDENCAT to be used as a way of retaining categories about the attributes of a topic which would otherwise be unacceptable (rather than attributes of the en.wp page), then we open the door to a parallel categorisation system in which some dubious cats retain a zombie existence, visible only to registered users who are logged in and have "view hidden categories" enabled in their preferences. That seems to me to be a very bad idea, and potentially a recipe for something akin to a dark web inside en.wp. ("hey, leave off Category:Has-beens / Category:DILFs / Category:Scumbag politicians — it's a WP:HIDDENCAT!

")

So the simplest solution here would be to unhide all 4 categories, and possibly rename them. That's better than hiding, but I agree with those in the 2012 CFD who objected to the principle of categorising people by which heritage register recognised some of their work, maybe hundreds of years later. Apart from being cluttersome, it would in many cases be WP:NONDEFINING, because many buildings end up on a heritage register because of their mere fact of survival or because they were used for some purpose of historical significance. For example, 20 Forthlin Road and Arabella Station are not listed because of their architectural merit.

I believe that the best solution would be to convert these to WikiProject tracking categories — because that is what they are actually being used for. At least one editor who is very active on NRHP topics (Doncram) finds these groupings helpful, and that is the only way I see of preserving them without breaching some other important principle. As @Black Falcon noted in the 2012 CFD, this could achieved by tweaking ((WikiProject NRHP)) to allow ((WikiProject NRHP|class=|importance=|architect=yes)). That proposal was supported by Doncram. As BF noted then It would need to be a three-stage transition: editing the project banner to accommodate the new parameter(s); adding the parameter to all affected talk pages (510, currently) so as to populate the categories with talk pages; and removing the articles. It's neither a big nor a complex task, and I would be happy to help to implement this.

However, if there is no consensus to convert to WikiProject tracking categories, these categories should simply be deleted as a breach of WP:DEFINING and WP:HIDDENCAT. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination amended Per discussion below with Nyttend, I have removed my support for converting these to project categories. That it is a decision for the WikiProject to make on its own, and I was wrong to suggest that a CFD should usurp that.

So instead I propose to delete the categories. I have listed their current contents on subpages of this CFD, so if WP:NRHP does wants to use them, it has that option.

The lists are:

Category:NRHP architects — listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 13#Architects
Category:NRHP builders — listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 13#Builders
Category:NRHP engineers — listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 13#Engineers
Category:NRHP artists — listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 13#Artists

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contents shifted to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 13. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the closer of the July 2012 CFD (@Mike Selinker) and the ten participants: @Black Falcon, Doncram, Johnpacklambert, Kbdank71, Nyttend, Orlady, Robofish, Sphilbrick, The Bushranger, and Vegaswikian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey peeps! I agree with BHG. If Doncram still supports converting to tracking categories, that works for me, but if the consensus isn't there, delete as non defining. Kbdank71 14:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly mind moving them to the talk page, but I don't think we ought to delete them. They're basically one person's categories, and they need to be unobtrusive; if they are unobtrusive (which they seem to me to be), we shouldn't care about them, but of course they ought to go to the least obtrusive place. If the talk page is better, move them there; just please get a bot to do it. I don't see why it would be a problem to have unobtrusive categories for one person (and that's what these seem to me to be), but if they're necessarily obtrusive (it sounds a bit like you're arguing that they are) or if it's bad to have a single-user category, then delete them, because they're not good as content categories. Since they're just one person's categories, please don't modify the project banner; they're not used by the project and shouldn't be treated as if they were. If they're moved to talk pages, the best solution is merely removing [[Category:NRHP whatever]] from articles and adding [[Category:NRHP whatever]] to talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Single-user categories are a truly terrible idea. If we allowed that, then any editor could create flurries of hidden categories outside of the usual categorisation guidelines, which would be a recipe for massive clutter as well as POV-pushing.

If these categories are neither not wanted nor used by the project, then of course CFD should not impose them on the project. I had not foreseen that the project would disown them, but obviously it has every right to do so.

So I suggest that this discussion should simply delete the categories after listifying them in project space, and leave the project to make its own decisions about whether to re-create them using its project banner. How does that sound to you? I am happy to amend the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to produce a list, better to create a page in Doncram's userspace and put the list there. I strongly doubt that anyone else would be interested in restoring them by means of the project banner, but it couldn't hurt to do your idea, and if I'm wrong about the project interest, your idea would help. Meanwhile, I was saying I don't see why it would be a problem to have unobtrusive categories for one person because these are innocuous: none of our readers would object on neutrality or attack-page grounds, while of course a hidden "Category:Eeeeevil politicians!" could be deleted on such a basis. I'm not massively concerned about the clutter issue, but I don't have any specific arguments against that. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: see above. I created the lists as subpages of this CFD page. So they will be permalinked from this discussion, available to whoever wants to use them for whatever.

I take your point about these cats not being attack categories. However, each category requires code in the relevant articles, and the hidden category will be displayed to all those who editors who have choose to view hidden categories. So they aren't really one person's categories; they are in a public space. And if we start allowing this sort of WP:NONDEF category, where and how do we draw lines? I do a lot of work on Irish+UK political topics, and it would be simple to define a vast set of similarly non-defining categories for politicians. For or against Brexit? Pro- or anti- the 8th Amendment in Ireland? Topped the poll under STV? Elected for a five-seat constituency? Imposed onto the ticket by party HQ? Voted for or against the ABC amendment to the X Bill? Backed or opposed the 2010 Fine Gael leadership heave? Those are all neutral, and probably all more objectively testable than the 4 cats nominated here. I don't want to find any such cats appearing as hidden and a WP:DoncramPrecedent being cited in their defence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting lists in the CFD subpage — thank you, that works fine. Attack categories etc — I was meaning applied to the talk page, since that's less obtrusive, and any category like this is quite harmless if taken in isolation. I don't now remember my thinking from earlier, but it looks like I was attempting to argue that such a category can be okay (and there's already internal-category clutter on some talk pages, e.g. Talk:New York City), and one could always request deletion for one that's offensive/non-NPOV/otherwise problematic by themselves. But if you're concerned that that's still too public, or that talk pages simply shouldn't be categorised in such a way, I'll respect that; I don't really have an opinion as far as "should" or "should not", so I don't think I should argue either way. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, in other words, I don't have an opinion on your concerns re precedent, so I'll leave your words unchallenged and unsupported, rather than fabricating an opinion that might be a bit ill-thought-through. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DexDor^(talk) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I said way back when, that I agree they could be moved to tracking categories as part of the WikiProject NRHP banner. As linked from the past discussion, I did try to take that forward, but it didn't get done, and it seemed like it was going to require three steps to get done. It could/should be done now. Please don't anyone rush to implement deletion of everything here, without letting that get done properly. There is no rush, no urgency, no bad reader-facing misinformation or anything bad at all going on here. I frankly don't think this CFD should have been opened at all, it could have been addressed without inviting back contenders from 6 years ago, and unnecessarily stirring up bad shit. It is hurtful to read insults written 6 years ago and to recall what else was going on.
Also, please stop with saying these are "one person's categories". These categories were added by many other persons to articles, too. They were part of a really great effort to address past contention within WikiProject NRHP about editors using NRIS information into articles, where NRIS was non-specific about whether a person was an architect, builder, engineer or other association with a place. There were guesses made in mainspace, e.g. stating that so-and-so was an architect, which some percent of the time was wrong. Creating knowledge, by creating articles, about all those being associated with 5 or more places, was hugely helpful in eliminating that as a problem, and allowed for wikilinks to the architects etc. from the places articles and allowed sorting out of name variations, and generally hugely increased the quality of the NRHP article system. Bashing, against me personally or against NRHP editors as a group is really not helpful. If, bizarrely, NRHP editors or whomever object to revising the NRHP banner for the tracking category, please don't anyone still proceed with deletion. It would at a minimum make sense to list out all the members in pages to be created within WikiProject NRHP's pages. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Lists of the categories' contents were created about an hour before you wrote that, and links to those pages were posted to the discussion 30 minutes before you commented.

They are not temporary pages. They will remain available for whenever you or anyone else wants to use them: next week, next month, next year, whenever.

If there is a consensus at WP:NHRP to incorporate these into the project banner, then it is not a technically difficult job. I would be happy to do it if and when there is consensus of the Project to do so.

But now that the pages are all listed, there is no technical need to delay deletion. The only remaining issue is whether there is a consensus to keep the categories in their current form: if not, then delete. And I note that you do not even try to defend the categories in their current form.

As to your complaint about inviting back contenders from 6 years ago ... on the contrary that is basic good practice to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPping. The guidance at WP:APPNOTE specifically endorses notifying "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic ". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, the people listed in these categories did not consistently have a relationship with NHRP. Many of them had already died before NHRP was established. So even if they are hidden the categories are not what they claim to be. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG/Marcocapelle as non-defining, and convert to a talk page category if WikiProject NRHP does not object (BHG notified the project already). It would be easy enough to modify ((WikiProject NRHP)) to accommodate something along the lines of ((WikiProject NRHP|occupation=architect)). I do oppose Nyttend's suggestion of merely transferring [[Category:NRHP whatever]] from the article to the talk page—in general, I think we ought to avoid placing category code directly in talk pages because it inevitably gets mixed up with comments. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ok so these are people who were involved in the creation/development of what has been deemed an "Historic Place". We don't categorize people by what film they helped create, or book, or TV series, etc. Architecture is no less a work of art. Another way to look at this, I presume each of the places is listed as a subcat of Category:National Register of Historic Places, and further that each person is listed in the article covering that historic place. This isn't even grouping people by award (Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_recipients), it's a step further away - it's grouping people by creations/locations by award the place won, which the people may have been involved in development of. - jc37 22:27, 18 November 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 23:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Algerian Championnat National seasons to Category:Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 seasons
- Category:Algerian Championnat National 2 seasons to Category:Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 2 seasons

Nominator's rationale: As far as I can discern, "Championnat National" and "Championnat National 2" are merely the former names of the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 and Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 2, respectively. (Pinging category creator: User:Djln) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:12, 13 November 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.

November 13

Category:Sex offenders in Florida

Category:17th-century Dukes of Normandy

Category:Equivalence classes

Category:Bunsen Is a Beast

Organisations

Category:Regulations of the Communist Party of China

NRHP occupations

Category:Algerian Championnat National seasons