< September 6 September 8 >

September 7

Category:Fishing companies

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 merge. MER-C 09:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 5 articles. Seafood companies is much better populated, and there is considerable overlap. If agreed the subcategories can speedily follow. Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, seeing that seafood is the larger category (better populated to me is an oxymoron), although I do not personally think that 'seafood' per se is a 'better' term. JarrahTree 23:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is exactly the problem. It obviously leads to the question why this category should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised how few articles there are about fishing companies. If we get more we could revisit this, but for the time being I think fishing companies as a subset of seafood companies, and some of them clearly catch or raise fish as well as selling them. Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree fishing companies are smaller than seafood companies, fishing companies are commonly involved in at sea events either as victims or as rescuers. The loss of vessels & crews are note worthy events, the fact that its a hole in Wikipedia's coverage doesnt change any that. Gnangarra 04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion convinces me that the issues raised in fact put question to either keep or merge - a common problem with a huge range of quite inappropriate category trees from the very beginning where maritime activities never had adequate review...(or since) JarrahTree 15:01, 10 September 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.

Category:Durham University cricketers

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. MER-C 10:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not Durham University Cricket Club which has had first-class status since 2001, but Durham MCCU (and as it was known prior to 2011, Durham UCCE). This would be in line with other MCC University categories such as Category:Oxford UCCE cricketers (which really needs renaming to Oxford MCCU cricketers), Category:Cambridge MCCU cricketers and Category:Cardiff MCCU cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 17:06, 7 September 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.

Category:Jawaharlal Nehru Award laureates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I'll place this on the manual page in case someone wants to make a list. MER-C 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, many articles do not even mention the award, e.g. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 7 September 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.

Category:Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons

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 per option A. MER-C 09:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Creative Commons (CC) is the organization; contributions are made under a CC license. I am neutral on "contributing" versus "who contribute"—most of this tree uses "contributing" but there are more categories overall that use "who contribute" (see here).
Also... While they are not part of this nomination, I would also appreciate thoughts about the subcategories. Which format should they use? (1) Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons #.# (2) Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons #.# license. (3) Wikipedians contributing under CC #.#. (4) Wikipedians contributing under a CC #.# license. If you would be kind enough to indicate 1, 2, 3, or 4, I will start a follow-up nomination once this one closes. (Pinging the category's creator, User:HarJIT) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 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.

Category:Maney Publishing academic journals

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 09:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per [1]. Maney has been fully acquired by T&F and every journal they had is now published by T&F directly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the distinction is meaningful much. If you go at [2] and you select 'Journals', you're taking to T&F. If you go to product search and you search for Dutch Crossing you find nothing. The only indication that Routledge is involved seems to be minor branding on the cover. But sure, merge those from Routledge to Category:Routledge academic journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 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.

Category:Mario Party games

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. MER-C 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "games" disambiguation is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 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.

Category:Zone of the Enders games

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. MER-C 09:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Originally a game series, it does not require a games subcategory. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 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.

Category:Wikipedians interested in the French Empire

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 to Category:Wikipedians interested in European colonial empires. MER-C 10:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the French Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
  • Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the German Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
  • Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the Portuguese Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
  • Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the Spanish Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
Nominator's rationale: merge to a new category. Every of the nominated categories has only 1 or 2 members, of which 1 Wikipedian, User:Jethwarp, is interested in all four. Category:Wikipedians interested in the British Empire‎ can be added as a subcategory of the new category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British Empire is not included in this nomination. There are more than enough wikipedians interested in that topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less people interested / more wikipedians interested distinction cannot be applied as criteria for nomination, I feel a uniform rule should apply to all category Jethwarp (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 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.

Category:Listed buildings and structures

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 to Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country. Categories listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Listed buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register
Nominator's rationale: If there's supposed to be a distinction between these two categories, it's not evident. Not quite sure which way the merge should be done, but since the Listed buildings article is UK-specific, I'm suggesting the older cat be retained in order to avoid confusion. Paul_012 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Most of the content which should probably fall under this tree is currently categorised under the sister cat Category:Heritage registers by country. Ideally, there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register, but since, in most cases, both seem to be categorised under the same eponymous categories (e.g., Category:Listed buildings in England contains both the subcats for the buildings and for the lists), perhaps we could forego the distinction and accept that everything be categorised under the same tree? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
voted again below.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not against this variant, but it does require supplementary restructuring indeed, so if this goes ahead it should probably be listed at WP:CFDWM. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Peterkingiron's alternative, as nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 22 September 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.

Category:Mamluk architecture in the Palestinian territories

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. MER-C 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Category:Buildings and structures in the State of Palestine, etc. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 7 September 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.

Category:Australian architecture by period

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 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Australian architecture by period to Category:Australian architecture by style
  • Propose merging Category:Danish architecture by period to Category:Danish architecture by style
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; in the first case, the one sub-cat is already in the target, and in the second case, the one sub-cat is a style rather than a date range. – Fayenatic London 06:44, 7 September 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.

Category:Fictional rogues

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 10:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope, two contradictory descriptions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 7 September 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.

Category:Fictional people

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 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "People" is not descriptive of this category's contents, since the majority of the Category:Fictional characters tree is not specific to human characters. (In fact, a large section is specific to non‑human characters — see Category:Fictional characters by species.) No clear distinction from Category:Fictional characters by attribute. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 7 September 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.
More