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 19:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mega-City One Justice Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Also nominating: Category:Mega-City One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Megacities in Judge Dredd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Judge Dredd locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This has to be some kind of record for Wikipedia. A category, a sub-category, a sub-sub-category and a sub-sub-sub-category, all consisting of only one category inside them. Four practically empty categories inside each other! These are all useless now. Delete them. JIP | Talk 23:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the nominator has removed one obvious member of Category:Mega-City One via this edit. Oculi (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (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 to Category:History of Australia by topic or relevant subcategories. MER-C 11:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

section break 1[edit]

• Propose merging Category:History of Australia topical overviews to Category:History of Australia

Nominator's rationale: There is no clear distinction between an article that's an overview and an article that's not and if there is a distinction (e.g. whether the article name contains the word "history") it's likely that few readers/editors will understand/follow it. Note: This is one of a number of "Foobar topical overviews" categories that has recently been created (and Category:History overviews by topic) - i.e. this CFD is a test case. DexDor ^(talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd also be happy with a merge to Category:History of Australia by topic as several editors have suggested below. DexDor ^(talk) 18:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DexDor, I think that is a helpful option for this proposal, and I appreciate your note. yes, the category of Category:History of Australia by topic might be a better option for merging this one. as I note below, I appreciate the input of everyone here. an open and free exchange of viewpoints is what Wikipedia is all about. my vote still stands, but I appreciate your ideas. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

section break 1a[edit]

• Keep. these categories have been in existence for a while and serve a highly useful purpose for each of the categories that they belong to. These are articles that are historical overviews of a particular topic within a larger historical category. They include numerous articles, and have never been objected to previously, by any of the dozens of editors who watch all of these articles. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in view of the fact that we have now had a full and vigorous discussion here on this page, I am changing my answer to "keep," instead of "strong keep." this is simply to reflect that I am glad to offer my own views, but also glad to accept the views of others, and to hear the consensus on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "highly useful purpose"? How do you define a "topical overview"? Is, for example, Temperance movement in Australia a topical overview? DexDor ^(talk) 21:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the category History of the United States topical overviews, it is clear that the category's role is to compile all articles that serve as a historical overview of a single topic, i.e., that they all serve as history of a specific topical area of the United States. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what makes, for example, Banking in the United States a topical overview, but not Temperance movement in Australia. DexDor ^(talk) 22:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

like many categories for historical eras, articles, subcategories, movements, or concepts, the scope and role of the category emerges based upon common usage and agreed-upon scope, amongst the dozens of editors who watch and edit each of the articles in these categories.--Sm8900 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as far as the two articles you cite, these decisions are not up to me alone. it is possible that editors for each article perceive a difference based on the scope of each article, in terms of the scope of the eras or areas covered. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the editor who created these categories and put articles into them - if even you can't explain what the inclusion criteria are you can't expect other editors to understand. DexDor ^(talk) 06:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I would be glad to do so. I appreciate your helpful question. basically, the inclusion of any article in this category depends on the article's scope and content. in this case, Banking in the United States refers to a societal function, ie an entire societal area, in the United States, while the Temperance movement in Australia is simply a single advocacy movement.

So therefore, the banking article encompasses numerous eras, efforts, and developments throughout American history; in other words it is a reflection and an aspect of the history of the country itself. whereas the temperance movement article is mainly a history of just one movement; it does not constitute a topic which encompasses or intersects with the broader historical scope of the nation as a whole; it can't, since again, it is not a broad societal function or goal, but rather a single movement.

And also, just to anticipate your next question, you can contrast this with History of youth rights in the United States, or any similar articles on civil rights in the US, since although that is also an advocacy movement, it is one which encompasses the whole of American society, and is a reflection of issues and events that permeate throughout the history of the country as a whole. this is not merely a subjective distinction; it would be clear to any editor seeking to use this category, and who reviews the articles in question. I hope that's helpful. I appreciate your helpful input on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's too fine a distinction for categorization in an encyclopedia like this (where editors have different worldviews, may not be native English speakers, may spend little/no time learning about the nuances of different categories etc). DexDor ^(talk) 18:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, okay, I respect your views, but this is one aspect where we disagree. for me, the stability of these subcategories, and the pattern of no contention over the inclusion of these articles in these subcats, is what imho give these subcats validity and usefulness here. I do respect you and your views, but this is one point where our views diverge. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't see an operational difference either. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

section break 2[edit]

• Disperse to Category:History of Australia by topic and its subcategories. Whether an article is an overview article or not is subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:History of Australia by topic. They seem to have the same scope. Dimadick (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't particularly object to Marcoapelle and Dimadick's solution, but I might point out that there's exactly the same category tree for the US and UK that's applied exactly the same way in practice: considering that they've probably been adapted from each other, it would be a good idea to deal with the three of them in the same way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently about 20 of these "topical overviews" categories. This CFD is about making a decision about whether they are useful (in which case thousands more of them could/should be created) or not useful (in which case they should all be deleted e.g. by a followup CFD). They have all (at least all those I've looked at) been created by the same editor (who, incidentally, took 11 edits to create the US category). DexDor ^(talk) 06:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, this CfD is only about the Australian category. This isn't an RFC covering all topics with the same terminology. Bookscale (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We normally discuss deletion of categories at CFD rather than by holding an RFC (this isn't about a change to categorization P&G). Doing one large CFD is also an option but can face issues such as similar categories being created whilst the CFD is running and this is not a case where deleting one category would create a "hole" in an otherwise complete categorization scheme. DexDor ^(talk) 12:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that you have only nominated one category here. The others would not have even been mentioned had Drovers' Wife not raised it. Getting consensus on one category doesn't give you carte blanche to go and change them all. Bookscale (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bookscale. And as DexDor said above, he is treating this as a test case, so that is why we need to exercise caution for this item, before this whole set of categories gets erased from Wikipedia. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The others would not have even been mentioned..." the nomination mentions that there are others. DexDor ^(talk) 18:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's true, it does. just want to acknowledge your point on that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:History of Australia by topic. The distinction of "overviews" is too subjective Mitch Ames (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- I see no difference from Category:History of Australia by topic. The category seems to be intended to gather the main articles for a series of topics, but I do not see why that is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 3[edit]

• Keep for now and start an RFC rather than trying to force such a large change impact many areas through single obscure discussions. Gnangarra 10:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"large change impact"?! The direct effect of this CFD would be to recategorize a few (currently 9) articles into a parent of where they currently are (probably returning the categorization to as it was a few months ago). DexDor ^(talk) 12:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DexDor , you are the one saying above that this proceeding is a test case, and that potentially this could be applied to all sub-categories of this nature, with dozens of articles. with respect, I think that is what Gnangarra is referring to above. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, Dimadick, could you please at least just look at the category category:History of the United States topical overviews? I think you might like to see this category's current role and scope. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as Australia, it is clearly history by topic, but nothing specifically identifying them as "overview" articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle,okay, but again, as I state below; prior to this, there was no such category that brought all such articles together, in one place. I think this would be of much positive value to anyone seeking to explore general topics in US history. The scope and parameters for "historical overview" are intutitively clear to anyone viewing these contents. even you guys have ackowledged as much, ie by saying "yes, these are all 'history of', however'".... before you get to the "however," though, you are also acknowlegding the basic intent, direction and scope of this set of categories. I hope you see my underlying point here. I do appreciate your input here. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• prior to this, there was no such category that brought all such articles together, in one place. I think this would be of much positive value to anyone seeking to explore general topics in US history. And again, please note that dozens of articles have been categorized in this way. there have been no objections to these subcats on any of these, even though presumably dozens of editors are keeping these articles on their watchlists. so I would ask for broader consideration of this issue. thanks.

the goal here is to enrich and broaden wikipedia and its coverage of these topical areas. so with respect, I would like to see some inclusivity here, to permit these categories to remain and to continue to serve in their existing function, for the communities of editors who focus upon these specific topics. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There have always been history by topic categories in every country, so the assertion that appropriate categories did not exist before is not valid. However these are mostly container categories and there is no reason to change that. Most articles in these so-called "overview" categories belong somewhere further down in the by-topic trees. The only thing that many of these articles have in common is that their title starts with "History of" but we do not categorize by title format. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "we do not categorize by title format." OK, totally fair enough; however, do we categorize based on articles' topic, content, and scope? I would posit that clearly, we do indeed; that, for me, is the central basis of this category. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

• We do categorize by topic and we already had categories by topic making this category redundant. I realize I am repeating myself. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Re "do we categorize based on articles' topic, content, and scope?". No, we usually (i.e. excluding maintenance categories etc) categorize just by the article's topic. See, for example, the 2nd para of WP:CAT. Re content: I once renamed/restructured an article from being about a person to being an article about an event (see e.g. WP:BLP1E); the new page had exactly the same content (facts) as before, but totally different categories (e.g. from year of the person's birth to year/place of the event). Re scope, isn't that the same as topic? DexDor ^(talk) 07:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 4: Further comments[edit]

• Keep for the reasons I expressed above that this only applies to one of these categories and shouldn't be used as a precedent. If the nominators want a broader CfD to be raised about all of these topics, they are welcome to do that. Bookscale (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support a broader CFD? DexDor ^(talk) 18:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge BUT Category:History of Australia topical overviews to Category:History of Australia by topic These seem to be identical to me? Aoziwe (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. interesting point. However, Category:History of Australia by topic seemed to be a container category. perhaps it can be used for individual articles as well. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's never been marked as a container category. Such categories tend to have few articles directly in them because most articles would fit in one of the subcats. The equivalent NZ category is an example that currently has an article in it directly. DexDor ^(talk) 18:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Just thinking about this Australia has very large set of differences between places, people. weather, events, laws, and mother things. Overviews are essential to most topics, with National overviews, that break down to state overviews, which break down even further to individual topics. Consider the fires we have them burning in across all states there impact is different, the National response is focused on NSW where concessions are being made for paying volunteers, long with some areas getting relief on tax, and social security issues, but all of that is inconsistent to each area. Cyclones we have multiple regions of coverage Western which is sub divided to Western, and north west, Northern & Gulf, Coral sea/NE QLD, and pacific island region therefore an overview article should exist. There just is no way to adequately cover any national topic in single article because of the complexities. its like the idiotic use of Aboriginal as if it one culture, one language when really over 300 of them. There are just too big a difference once you start linking into international topics it not that simple. Gnangarra 09:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:History of Australia by topic and its subcats. Even after the thousands of bytes that have been spilt on the topic, I still don't understand how I am meant to decide whether something should be in one of the various histories by topical overview cats. I know that a social movement can be in the category if it "is a reflection of issues and events that permeate throughout the history of the country as a whole", whatever that means. By my reading, that means that we can have, for instance, Women's suffrage in Australia as part of Category:History of Australia topical overviews, but Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom wouldn't be allowed as part of Category:History of the United Kingdom topical overviews because the UK predates the suffrage movement by two centuries. Except that seems patently absurd, so that can't be what is meant. What about Temperance movement in the United States? Is that a sufficiently important social movement to be part of Category:History of the United States topical overviews? It's more important to US history than the temperance movement is to Australian history, but I still don't know whether it meets the bar. For all that it has been argued by the creator that the distinctions being drawn are not subjective, they are certainly not being clearly and unambiguously expressed – essentially, the standard appears to be "I know it when I see it", except that I, for one, don't know it. But I do know that categorisation by "I know it when I see it" is a recipe for disaster. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum: That was a hypothetical example, but I see that History of lidos in the United Kingdom was added to Category:History of the United Kingdom topical overviews by Sm8900 in this edit. In what way is the history of lidos a topic which encompasses or intersects with the broader historical scope of the nation as a whole in a way which meaningfully excludes any other article in Category:History of the United Kingdom by topic? I don't think even Sm8900 really does have a consistent standard for which articles should go in these categories, let alone one which can be explained to other editors. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input here, and am glad to hear all views on this. obviously, I will support and yield to whatever consensus the community may reach. my comments above referred to the overall direction of the category itself. as far as that one article you cite, it simply sounded interesting as one article to include. as I said, the category itself is to help interested users with browsing this topical area. my comments on the criteria were meant as general guidelines. I don't claim to be perfect in the areas of adding articles to categories; sometimes it is a subjective choice. Anyway, I do appreciate your input, and I welcome all views on this. this is what Wikipedia is all about. I'm glad to have a free and open discussion on this. I appreciate the help and effort of everyone here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as far as your comments re women's suffrage articles, that's an excellent point. they are worthy of inclusion. the question is not whether they are as long-standing as the country itself, but rather their historical significance. I appreciate your point on that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2020 (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 19:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to have a rather vague (what exactly makes a song "inspirational"?) and subjective (what may inspire one person may be cringeworthy to another) inclusion criteria. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Subjective and not defining. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:06, 8 January 2020 (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 19:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Writers from Panadura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one person, on the intersection of his occupation and his individual city of birth. Categories like this do not automatically need to exist as soon as just one person is available to be filed in them -- for a category like this to be justified, there would need to be either (a) a lot of articles available to be filed in it, or (b) a reason why being specifically from Panadura was a meaningfully WP:DEFINING characteristic of the writers' work. Overdoing a scheme of comprehensively subcategorizing every writer by their individual city of birth does not aid navigation if it results in hundreds or thousands of one-entry subcategories for small cities. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article is already in Category:People from Panadura, no upmerge needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also Category:Sri Lankan writers by locality and Category:Sri Lankan writers by city which will be emptied. If Category:Sri Lankan writers is to be split, the first split should be between Tamil and Sinhalese and the next by province. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2020 (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 19:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Film directors from Panadura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one person, on the intersection of his occupation and his individual city of birth. Categories like this do not automatically need to exist as soon as just one person is available to be filed in them -- for a category like this to be justified, there would need to be either (a) a lot of articles available to be filed in it, or (b) a reason why being specifically from Panadura was a meaningfully WP:DEFINING characteristic of the filmmakers' work. Overdoing a scheme of comprehensively subcategorizing every filmmaker by their individual city of birth does not aid navigation if it results in hundreds or thousands of one-entry subcategories for small cities. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for similar reasons to Category:Sri Lankan writers from Panadura. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2020 (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 19:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop participants needing help (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: After a deletion discussion, Template:ASCB helpme has been closed as delete. Because Template:ASCB helpme is being deleted, this category is therefore going to become useless. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category is empty and could have been tagged CSD C1 for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 9 January 2020 (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 19:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sri Lankan screenwriters by District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not enough to categorise by district Rathfelder (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Screenwriters from Kalutara District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Filmmakers from Kalutara District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 Rathfelder (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - these have been created solely for Prasanna Vithanage, already more than adequately categorised, as have Category:Film directors from Panadura and Category:Writers from Panadura, which should also be deleted. Oculi (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Sri Lankan screenwriters by District has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 9 January 2020 (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 19:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of fictional monarchs to Category:Lists of monarchs

Nominator's rationale: Only a single article. TTN (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The one article in this category is a very long one: does not need splitting? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (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 19:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Pointless, arbitrary category Le Deluge (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by originator: Deleting category. I will delete this category for now, in order to get more input on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although this has already been redirected to Category:Container categories, it's not actually synonymous with that — a "container category" is a category that is meant by definition to only contain subcategories and not articles, while a "parent category" is any category that has subcategories at all even if it also has articles too. So it's true that all container categories are parent categories by definition, but not true that all parent categories are necessarily container categories. But it's not useful on its own either, because every category that exists at all is potentially a parent category to one or more subcategories, and a child category to one or more parent categories — so categorizing categories for their status as "parent" vs. "child" categories would be a distinction failure where both trees would be virtually identical lists of every single category that exists at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree slightly with comment above. @Bearcat: Although it's true that "container categories" has the meaning that you note above, that is only because we have subjectively assigned that meaning to that term, based on our own usage and needs here at Wikipedia. On that basis, the term "parent categories" has no established meaning or scope at all, since it is not currently in active usage in any way here. it's true that the phrase "parent categories" could be construed the way that you note above, but so could container categories. there is literally no difference between the two terms, except that one term has an assigned usage and meaning here at Wikipedia, and the other term currently has no active or assigned usage or assigned meaning whatsoever, here at Wikipedia.

So therefore, just to clarify, my usage of "parent categories" was not intended to have as broad a scope as the one that you mention above. I do appreciate your helpful comment above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that CFD talks about parent and child categories all the time, in exactly the context I described: any category that has subcategories is a parent of those subcategories, and the subcategories are its children. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah, okay, that is interesting. well I intended for it to have a narrower scope than that. that is interesting to know though. I appreciate your helpful and informative reply. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - usual guidelines are to avoid self-reference in Wikipedia in areas where general readers are likely to wander. If there is a purpose for this category, then perhaps it should be a hidden one entitled Category:Wikipedia parent categories or similar. Personally, I don't see a need for the category since the vast majority of categories are probably parents. Container categories, which are parentonly (i.e., with no stray articles), are more important to keep track of, as much as anything to make sure that no individual articles are creeping into them. And while you're right, Sm8900, that there is no such distinction between categories outside Wikipedia, by usage there has become such a distinction within the project and as such it's one worth following (see WP:CCAT and WP:Glossary#Parent). Grutness...wha? 01:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2020 (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 Category:Fictional judges. MER-C 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mega-City One judges to Category:Judge Dredd characters

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. This should be upmerged to everything except "Mega-City One Justice Department." These two and the one in the child category are the only articles left in that entire location category structure. TTN (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Fictional judges. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2020 (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 Category:Dungeons & Dragons populated places and Category:Forgotten Realms locations. MER-C 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Forgotten Realms populated places to Category:Dungeons & Dragons locations

Nominator's rationale: Very few actual articles left. The redirects belong in a redirect category. I also proposed the parent category, so this should just go straight to the parent-parent category. TTN (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest instead merging Category:Forgotten Realms populated places and Category:Forgotten Realms locations together, as even without the redirects there are enough articles left for a Forgotten Realms-specific category. Should that change, then a merge to the D&D parent category would be appropriate. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not merge also to Category:Dungeons & Dragons populated places? – Fayenatic London 20:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but dual merge to Category:Dungeons & Dragons populated places, per Fayenatic's comment, and to Category:Forgotten Realms locations, see nomination below. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2020 (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 merge. MER-C 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Forgotten Realms locations to Category:Dungeons & Dragons locations

Nominator's rationale: Only a few actual articles. The redirects should go in a different "redirects to lists" category. TTN (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • I suggest instead merging Category:Forgotten Realms populated places and Category:Forgotten Realms locations together, as even without the redirects there are enough articles left for a Forgotten Realms-specific category. Should that change, then a merge to the D&D parent category would be appropriate. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree on merging Category:Forgotten Realms populated places and Category:Forgotten Realms locations, see nomination above, and keeping this category. But if isn't kept, the articles should still stay in the tree of Category:Forgotten Realms some way or the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (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 manually. MER-C 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Orchids diseases and pests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Problems with this category include it's name is ungrammatical and the effect on orchids is non-defining (e.g. for Coccus viridis or Mealybug). Note: There is no wider structure of "diseases and pests" categories (although there are a few "pests and diseases" categories). Category:Orchid diseases should be categorized under Category:Orchid ecology. DexDor ^(talk) 16:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"it's name is ungrammatical": oops. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selectively merge to Category:Orchid ecology, per nom. The last two articles of the category can probably be included in the merge. Otherwise it is a sort of WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. "pests and diseases" is the standard wording for this type of category, but this can just be upmerged to Orchid ecology. Plantdrew (talk) 19:54, 31 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 to Category:Judge Dredd characters. MER-C 19:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mega-City One Chief Judges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, one of which is already under deletion discussion. Too little content for a separate category. Delete. JIP | Talk 13:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Mega-City One judges rather than straight delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Judge Dredd characters. I nominated the parent category for merging up above. Might as well just skip that step. TTN (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine with me, but then also merge to Category:Fictional judges, like the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with TTN. Category:Mega-City One judges would only contain three articles, it's better to merge straight to Category:Judge Dredd characters. JIP | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2020 (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.