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:Basal readers. MER-C 03:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Commercial reading programs to Category:Learning to read courses

Nominator's rationale: Aside from the immediate WP:ENGVAR issue of program vs programme, there's a deeper one in that "program" isn't really used in the sense of an education course in British English - and it's somewhat ambiguous with the software sense (per Category:Language learning software . It wasn't immediately obvious to me what this category was about. The creator did not categorise it and appears to have been unaware of Category:Learning to read, I suggest we tie it in more clearly to that parent category. Le Deluge (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Le Deluge (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

→ Thanks. I think you’re right that I didn’t hit the mark here (my first category creation attempt!). I think many of the relevant pages for this category are about the ‘stuff’ of learning to read - student readers, teacher books, software, electronic items - would Category:Learning to read materials or something like it be a better option? Smilingpolitely (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Learning to read. No objection against creation of a books subcategory, a software subcategory or a courses subcategory when there are a substantial number of articles about them. But that is not yet the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Commercial reading programs to Category:Learning to read curricula

Rationale: by analogy to the existing but more narrowly focused Category:Phonics curricula. The word ‘’curricula’’ seems able to encompass the content of the pages in this category. Smilingpolitely (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the impression that the category content meanwhile changed a bit, making my previous vote obsolete. Now alt rename to Category:Basal readers, aligned with main article Basal reader. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (OP) Support rename to Category:Basal readers - I didn't know the term (is it a US thing, or just education jargon?) but that seems to cover the content.Le Deluge (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 03:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trans women to Category:Transgender (male-to-female)

Nominator's rationale: The current name is rather misleading; an editor adding categories via HotCat or the visual editor may see it and assume it's for individual trans women (even though we already have Category:Transgender and transsexual women for them), when in reality it's for topics related to them in some way. The addition of M. J. Bassett, who I have just moved to the aforementioned Category:Transgender and transsexual women, supports my argument. Vaporgaze (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Needs a better target, not all trans women are “male to female”; merging to Category:Transgender and transsexual women makes sense. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose alt merge, mixing topic articles with biographies in one category is not a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Still opposed. What about Category:Transgender and transsexual women as the parent category, and migrate biographies to Category:Transgender and transsexual women biographies or some similar scheme? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am neutral towards both the original and the alternative rename proposal (except I would put "biographies" between brackets). @Vaporgaze: what is your opinion about the alternative rename? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle:Could've sworn I read a policy stating that we shouldn't name categories like this since the names are supposed to refer to the subjects of the articles rather than the articles themselves IIRC, but I can't find it anywhere now. Even if I'm just misremembering things, I'm not a fan of the alternative rename, as it would make the name inconsistent with those of just about every other non-hidden category, plus it just looks awkward.--Vaporgaze (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearcat:, any ideas? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild oppose. "Trans women" seems to have become the most common and less loaded term. All other suggested names seem to carry a point of view on the issue. None of these brings an improvement, either in brevity or clarity. Place Clichy (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 03:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trans men to Category:Transgender (female-to-male)

Nominator's rationale: The current name is rather misleading; an editor adding categories via HotCat or the visual editor may see it and assume it's for individual trans men (even though we already have Category:Transgender and transsexual men for them), when in reality it's for topics related to them in some way. Vaporgaze (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Needs a better target, not all trans men are “female to male”; merging to Category:Transgender and transsexual men makes sense. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose alt merge, mixing topic articles with biographies in one category is not a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Still opposed. What about Category:Transgender and transsexual men as the parent category, and migrate biographies to Category:Transgender and transsexual men biographies or some similar scheme? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild oppose. "Trans men" seems to have become the most common and less loaded term. All other suggested names seem to carry a point of view on the issue. None of these brings an improvement, either in brevity or clarity. Place Clichy (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 03:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Regulatory fraud to Category:Regulatory compliance

Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles. Articles about non-compliance could happily sit in the category about compliance Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Extended merge, the two articles about scandals should also be added to Category:Fraud and Category:Car crime. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added Greyball and an unrelated biography. IMHO there is scope to expand this category in a way that will be useful. – Fayenatic London 17:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Explanation on the difference to its supercategory Category:Maya writing needed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Category:Maya script seems to be an okay category, per main article Maya script. It is the parent Category:Maya writing which is unclear in scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @1234qwer1234qwer4: see this follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The followup nomination resulted in a merger. MER-C 08:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @1234qwer1234qwer4: I guess this discussion can be closed without further action needed, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 03:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American Theater Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, it is not a defining characteristic, in quite a few articles it is not even mentioned at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 03:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Vehicles rebuilt in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure the creator understands what "rebuilt" means, and it seems to be applied inconsistently and often without references - the Evoque seems to be a current model made in a Chinese factory, others are examples of old tooling being sold to China. Le Deluge (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As some of these vehicles were cloned, some were produced also or badge engineered, with or without license. As nominated for deletion, my test was successful for reviewing the Germans view on automotive industry. Thanks. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 17:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 03:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Crossings of the Prut River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Crossings of the Kharkiv River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete as a redundant category layer, they each only contain one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory has been adequately parented already. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eliminate this level - Such categories should not normally exist, both are merely parenting a bridges category. Possibly the bridge subcat should be merged here rather than this being deleted. If there were also multiple articles on ferries or tunnels, in theory having both might be legitimate, but it would perhaps be better to have them all in crossings. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that Category:Crossings by river and its crossing subcats include the subcat of Category:Bridges by river because crossings include ferries and tunnels. Retaining that uniform structure would not be a bad thing for the cost of these categories. Hmains (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not every river has enough coverage to need a crossings category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (the list in the article already contains all members). MER-C 03:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sultan Qaboos Prize for Environmental Preservation laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify (in main article) if needed. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 03:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former Turkic states to Category:Historical Turkic states

Nominator's rationale: I'm not seeing a difference here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I see a difference in content: Category:Former Turkic states contains modern former states of which it is questionable to refer to them as Turkic states at all. I am tending to a plain delete vote for that reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: On Sco.wiki, what I did was just renamed historical Turkic states to former Turkic countries and merged both into it. Then I up-merged Modern Turkic states with its parent category Turkic states (then renamed it to Turkic countries). That made sense to me because Azerbaijan Democratic Republic is basically just a former Turkic country while Turkey is a current Turkic country.
I also did other stuff though, so it might've only made sense in terms of Sco.wiki's category tree. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The question basically is what is the definition of a Turkic state. I would suppose it is a state in which non-Turkic people do not have the same legal rights for mere ethnic reasons. Modern states are not Turkic states, similarly the United Kingdom is not a Germanic state. (But possibly the whole concept of a Turkic state is ill-defined.) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge as the clarification in scope that comes with the merger is welcome. Note that some "states" in the Category:Former Turkic states are not Turkic or ethnic in nature. Instead, they are temporary political regimes in modern-day Turkic countries, but that in most cases would not be entirely "Turkic" in character, either by their population, their leadership or their government principles. Such entities that could not be clearly defined as a "Turkic state" should be purged before merging. Place Clichy (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Place Clichy: it may be helpful to indicate which of these articles should be purged, or which may stay. (As implied earlier, I am afraid that they should all be purged.) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.