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. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Magic: The Gathering players to Category:Professional Magic: The Gathering players

Nominator's rationale: Otherwise its not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not disagreeing, but does this not apply to Category:Game players and many more categories in that tree as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Not all players may be professional but may still be defined as an MTG player. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename a few of these folks are no doubt notable primarily for their Magic playing, but some like various (physical) sports folks its just a by-the-by. I think we went through this debate with bridge players a while back, but I couldn't find the debate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to create a clearer inclusion criteria. If it turns out to be inaccurate as more players become notable (for some other non-professional reason), I would support revisiting this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on both technical and substantive grounds. Technically, there is no good reason for this category's naming to deviate from the rest of Category:Game players, which is not nominated. Substantively, while categorization should be defining, this is an instance better handled by common-sense application of WP:CATDEF instead of adding "professional" to the title of every activity-based category. For example, plenty of people sing, swim, and write, and yet we do not need to rename Category:Singers, Category:Swimmers, and Category:Writers to make explicit that non-professionals are excluded. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:00, 1 August 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. bibliomaniac15 02:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: "Grimdark" is not a genre, its something someone calls a product which they find overly melodramatic. None of the pages in this category define themselves as "gramdark". Its a POV magnet. ★Trekker (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is the case, shouldn't the article Grimdark be deleted? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something can still be notable without being a genre or something that should be categorized with.★Trekker (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not get it, we have an article about grimdark as a genre and you say it does not exist as a genre, then isn't there a problem with the article? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is also wrong, but that's not what I'm concerned about right now.★Trekker (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Normally categories follow what happens in article space, so if the article is deleted for this particular reason, the category can follow almost speedily. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a genre, and works should be categorized as such. Dimadick (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Its not a genre, and you want to keep every single category ever made.★Trekker (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the article Grimdark notes, there is debate about whether grimdark is a genre in its own right or a dismissive label. That makes the category WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and unstable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too subjective, per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I see some evidence this has shifted from a WP:NEOLOGISM but still hasn't stabilized into something defining. It may never be defining. It might be like calling a film "self referential" or calling a book a "political allegory", where it's in the eye of the audience. For now there just isn't a stable criteria to start using this as a defining category. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this category is deleted, the two novels should be added to Category:Dark fantasy novels. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:19, 1 August 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: rename. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wrong Turn films to Category:Wrong Turn (film series)

Nominator's rationale: Wrong Turn (film series) is the main article of category. ★Trekker (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO that would be wrong. Category:20th Century Fox film series mainly uses "films" not "(film series)" at the end of the category name for each set of films. The article Wrong Turn (film series) is named that way to disambiguate it from the first film, but the category name should not have to match it in such cases; C2C should override C2D. So, keep. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't be wrong in any way. Some categories have "films" instead of "(film series)" because they're childcategories to a larger franchise category. In this case that is not so, Category:Wrong Turn films is the only cat, there is no Category:Wrong Turn (franchise) as a parent category.★Trekker (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, "(film series)" is the standard, see for example the content of Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe film series. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 01:19, 3 August 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: rename. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hindi horror films to Category:Hindi-language horror films

Nominator's rationale: Need to maintain consistency with parent article Category:Hindi-language films. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there are no other Hindi-language categories by genre, so we may discuss upmerging too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Marcocapelle. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with upmerging. I think it would be more useful to create the other genre subcategories and subdivide the massive parent cat into them. LadyofShalott 05:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. This seems like a notable intersection, so worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The parent category currently contains 4,530 pages. Creating a subcategory for Hindi-language films by genre (with genre specific subcategories created for that) will further organize the films in a neat manner and facilitate navigation, as well as lessen the overpopulation of the current parent category. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 14:47, 30 July 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: rename to option A. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Option A

• Category:Icterus to Category:Icterus (genus)

Option B

• Category:Icterus to Category:New World oriole

Nominator's rationale: The bare title Icterus is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is New World oriole, and the scientific name Icterus (genus) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Option A or to Category:Icterus (bird). Note: Option B probably should be Category:New World orioles (plural). DexDor ^(talk) 06:24, 28 July 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. bibliomaniac15 02:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Criticism of bad literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Additionally, Category:Literary criticism already exists. 1857a (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and the content of the category is incoherent. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incoherent. The contents include a literary review magazine, a podcast devoted to criticism, and a contest about poorly received opening lines in novels. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible keep, perhaps renamed to Category:Awards for bad literature. Literary Review appears because it makes an award for bad sex in fiction. However since there are only three articles, it should perhaps be merged somewhere: is there an award for the worst films? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "is there an award for the worst films?" There is. The Golden Raspberry Awards "honoring the worst of cinematic under-achievements". Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 3 August 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Décastar to Category:Athletics competitions in France and Category:Decathlon

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Eponymous category for Décastar, an annual decathlon competition in France. It contains only two articles: Décastar and 2005 Décastar. The competition has been running for over 40 years, so it could in theory be expanded with an article on each year's competition ... but since even the French-language-Wikipedia article fr:Décastar links to no by-year articles, that seem unlikely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two articles exist and there are articles of the last ten editions available for translation at the Norwegian and Polish wikis. Should be trivial to expand this article set on a global level meeting for decathlon and heptathlon. SFB 02:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply @Sillyfolkboy: if and when those articles are translated are demonstrated to be notable, the category can readily be re-created. But there are huge translation backlogs, so it's unhelpful to keep the category indefinitely in the hope that someday some translater will pick these articles from the backlog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: I've created a couple more articles for the competition to avoid category deletion SFB 22:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sillyfolkboy the article which you have created are 2001 Décastar and 2019 Décastar. As of now, they show no evidence of meeting WP:GNG.

Creating articles which belong at AFD merely to pad out a category is very unhelpful. It looks WP:POINTy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. SMALLCAT is about "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" so doesn't apply to this category. DexDor ^(talk) 20:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The first and second paragraph of WP:SMALLCAT are poorly aligned with each other. The second paragraph merely says "realistic potential for growth" which sounds a lot more realistic. Only with history categories one may be able to argue that they "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" and I am sure that WP:SMALLCAT was not just intended for history categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2nd paragraph of SMALLCAT limits the applicability of SMALLCAT; it doesn't extend the applicability. DexDor ^(talk) 06:32, 28 July 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:Ugandan clergy. – Fayenatic London 13:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ugandan Pastors to Category:Ugandan pastors

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. Fuddle (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Ugandan religious leaders per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom or at worst merge to Category:Ugandan clergy, but I suspect these pastors are Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, etc., so that the best solution will be to reparent this to that category and populate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked articles. One is Pentecostal. The other two may be independent, one of them making accusations against Pentecostals, which makes me think they belong together in a separate sub-cat of clergy. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Ugandan clergy per Peterkingiron. bibliomaniac15 02:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also okay with merging to Category:Ugandan clergy instead of to Category:Ugandan religious leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 27 July 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. bibliomaniac15 02:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Children of Moses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only two sons. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More Dimadick creations.★Trekker (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see why we need many sons for a children category. Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: Categories must have a minimum number of articles, you really should know that by now because of all the deletions.★Trekker (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page." Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this relate to the current nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: How are mythological children of mythological people even remotly comparable to that?★Trekker (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It points to the exceptions of the rule. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: Yeah those exceptions clearly don't apply here.★Trekker (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick:, this isn't a good example of SMALLCAT. I can't imagine that people would be using the "Children of X" category structure for most of the people in the Bible who had only one or two siblings/children, this is quite a different matter from (on the one hand) the dozens of children of Zeus, which aren't all linked to one another already, or (on the other hand) the place of Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven in an "Operas by composer" and "Works by Beethoven" cat structure. Delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the Bible do not have their own categories, so subcategories do not apply. Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 19 July 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: No consensus Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:History of All-Palestine (Gaza) by period‎ to Category:History of the Gaza Strip by period‎
• Propose merging Category:Decades in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:Decades in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:1940s in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:1940s in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:1948 in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:1948 in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:1950s in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:1950s in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:1949 in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:1949 in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:1956 in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:1956 in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:1957 in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:1957 in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose merging Category:Years in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:Years in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:Years of the 20th century in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:Years of the 20th century in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:Disestablishments in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:Disestablishments in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:Establishments in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:Establishments in the Gaza Strip‎
• Propose renaming Category:Massacres in All-Palestine (Gaza)‎ to Category:Massacres in the Gaza Strip‎

Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, Gaza Strip was the WP:COMMONNAME of the area. The All-Palestine Government was a government in exile, not factually exercising power in the Gaza Strip.

@Gonnym, Place Clichy, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors to this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If you claim that the WP:COMMONNAME for the political entity in the years 1948-1957 was simply Gaza Strip then provide by the numbers to back it up. I will urge any closing admin to dismiss such a claim without any evidence. But more importantly, the category tree for Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza just does not support such a claim either. Look at how the tree is set up. Category:Decades in the Gaza Strip shows that only Category:2000s in the Gaza Strip and Category:2010s in the Gaza Strip are used, while a more deeper look shows that each decade uses the relevant name used at the time. We have Category:2020s in the State of Palestine in 2020s but we have Category:2010s in the Gaza Strip, Category:2010s in the Palestinian territories and Category:2010s in the State of Palestine in 2010. Then we have Category:1980s in the Israeli Military Governorate and Category:1980s in the Israeli Civil Administration area in the 1980s and Category:1960s in the West Bank Governorate and Category:1960s in the Israeli Military Governorate in the 1960s. Targeting specially this bizarre to say the least. I see no valid rational or argument here at all. --Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The Britannica seems to say that the name "Gaza strip" resulted from the de facto borders established at the end of the 1948 war (see [1]) when a 'strip' of territory around Gaza was held by Egypt. Certainly by 1955, the term was that used in the US (see, e.g., [2]). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, because Gaza Strip is about the modern enclave under Hamas Government. The All-Palestine protectorate existed before the 1967 war and the coining of West Bank and Gaza Strip concepts. During all-Palestine period those were All-Palestine Protectorate (followed by Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip) and Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (occupation/annexation). We classify by geopolitical history, but geographical similarity of Gaza Strip under Hamas to All-Palestine has nothing in common in historical and geopolitical sense; it is like merging Turkish occupation of North Syria with Ottoman Empire categories.GreyShark (dibra) 10:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Relisting note Category:1949 in All-Palestine (Gaza) was not previously tagged. I've tagged it, but this discussion should remain open for a full 7 days from now --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'll again re-state my original position here, if this ends in a no-consensus, then per WP:C2D the categories should match the parent article, All-Palestine Protectorate, and not use this incorrectly disambiguated title. --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:C2D is not valid to overrule an earlier opposed CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support -- Whatever its legal status, its de facto status 1953-67 was that it was ruled by Egypt. It seems doubtful whether in the period 1948-53 the All-Palestine government had much effective authority, as opposed to being an Egyptian puppet. There is however another argument: when polities are renamed, we do not have two categories, one for each name, but a single one with the name of the successor polity/state. The area has been a distinct polity since 1948 (with boundaries defined by a 1949 armistice). This became an occupied territory of Israel in 1967; and then one part of the Palestinian territories, separated from the rest by a large area of Israel. It follows that whatever categories are needed should be subcategories of Gaza Strip. Most of the categories do not have 5 articles (the usual minimum) and the content for the 1948 and 1949 ones seems heavily to overlap. The place for expressing that the strip was technically the territory of the All-Palestine government is in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 2 August 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 since there is strong opposition to merger. I have instead added "See also" links between the pages so that navigation is still possible. If editors wish to add the articles into Category:Yass Valley Council after all, that is an outcome which would normally be considered correct. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

2-page category

• Category:Bowning, New South Wales to Category:Yass Valley Council
• Category:Marchmont, New South Wales to Category:Yass Valley Council

3-page categories

• Category:Wee Jasper, New South Wales to Category:Yass Valley Council

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these categories for small places in the Yass Valley Council, New South Wales are are tiny, with little chance of expansion. They all currently contain 2 or 3 pages: the head article plus one or two others. I haven't found any other articles to expand the categories.

As with many other New South Wales locations, category creation seems to have been a bit indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Inverell[3] Gnangarra 08:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gnangarra, your oppose rationale is as misplaced here as it was in the other discussion. The local govt status of the locality doesn't alter the fact that categories are too small. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • these are two separate unique subjects merging them is inappropriate. Gnangarra 07:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Untrue. @Gnangarra, please read the lead of the two lead articles: Bowning, and Marchmont, New South Wales. In each case, the lead asserts that the topic is a locality in the Yass Valley Council.
        They are therefore not separate unique subjects from the council. They are sub-topics of the council area, and can be merged to that category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fact The Yass Valley Council is formed under the Local Government Act[4] they are not Towns in NSW it is the third tier of Government in NSW. Towns have separate unique relationships with other places, people, events unrelated to the Yass Valley Council. Gnangarra 02:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Gnangarra, as @Marcocapelle wrote above: Of course towns are a different entity than shires, nobody denies that. The point at stake is that most town categories have too little content in them (with the exception of some bigger towns) so we should mostly stick to categorisation at shire level.
            In any case, the head articles on the towns are already in Category:Yass Valley Council, a category which is composed mostly of towns. So the notion that towns shouldn't be in the parent level category would mean emptying the category of both articles on towns and these subcats for towns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • • You are still missing the point the towns should also be in Category:Towns in New South Wales as well as the Category on the Councils, Shires. The Councils & Shires do not fit within this structure, because they are two distinctly different subject areas. Gnangarra 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is perfectly alright when an article about a town is in Category:Towns in New South Wales and in a Category on the Councils, Shires. That is not going to change with this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Gnangarra, on the contrary, it's you who is missing the point. This merger will not remove any article on a town from Category:Towns in New South Wales. If you had bothered to check the categories and articles before posting at length about them, you would see that none of these three categories is a subcat of Category:Towns in New South Wales ... but all of them are subcats of Category:Yass Valley Council. It's quite disruptive to repeatedly post about a topic without even spending a minute or two doing the very basic checks on what you are talking about. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per Gnangarra. These are separate entities and should not be merged. Deus et lex (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See response in the nomination further above (let's not duplicate the discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point duplicating the discussion because Gnangarra is absolutely right. Deus et lex (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Deus et lex: Gnangarra is absolutely wrong on all counts.

1. These are categories for tiny places, so they have little chance of expansion.
2. There is no policy or guideline to support the notion that we should have an eponymous category for every local govt unit, regardless of how little content exists to populate it
3. In each case, both the category and the head article are already in the target Category:Yass Valley Council. So it's daft to object to merging to a category which the pages are already in.

It's pity that the passion of a few Australian editors isn't matched by attention to the facts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The simple fact is they are two different entities, items being merged are not related to the Local Government Authority. Gnangarra 03:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a straw man: nobody claims that they are directly related to the Local Government Authority. The simple fact which Gnangarra can't or won't grasp is that Category:Yass Valley Council is not a category solely for the functions of the LGA. If that was the case, it would not contain only one page (the head article Yass Valley Council), because all the towns would be purged. The Category:Yass Valley Council is a geographical category which contains all the topics within its area, including the topics currently in subcats ... so merging presents no scope issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yass Valley council as the Local Government is responsible for administration that includes town areas, its planning, some facilities, and other activities so the town is part of the Councils scope. With in each town there are facilities, people, events that are created by third parties. The Goodradigbee Shire once included the town of Wee Jasper, the Yass Valley Council currently includes a number places that were once part of other Local Government Authorities these town have other relationships to other Local Government Authorities. The Yass Valley Council didnt exist until 1980 where as these towns existed long before that, since then there have been a number of boundary changes to the YVC but the towns have always stayed in the same place being moved from one LGA to next as whim of the NSW State Government chooses, such changes will continue into the future. One is fix entity the other is variable entity the connection to fixed places are just a fleeting moment in time. Facilities in a town may exist under one LGA but not under another. Gnangarra 02:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Mostly true, Gnangarra, but all irrelevant. We categorise by current administrative geography, not by former local authorities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  All true, we categorise by whatever subject an article is related to, whether its former or current is irrelevant. A [ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search?keyword=Wee%20Jasper search] of Trove shows that theres just 17,783 items within its collection related to Wee Jasper. Theres more articles to be written. Gnangarra 07:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true. See my longer comment below, but here I will just brief note two flaws

  1. Gnangarra's search is malformed. A search for the phrase "Wee Jasper" — https://trove.nla.gov.au/?keyword=%22Wee%20Jasper%22 — gives on ~9,000 hits
  2. A mention of "Wee Jasper" does not establish either than the topic is WP:Notable, or that Wee Jasper is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the topic.

  It's ridiculous that this discussion of 3 tiny categories has been bulked out to such lengths by Gnangarra's tactics of spewing out so many falsifiable assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - these are tiny places, all with fewer than 1000 residents. Oculi (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  fewer than a 1000 residents doesnt change the fact that these places have notable people, places, relationships and events. Gnangarra 03:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Gnangarra continues to miss the very simple point that these small places are unlikely to have enough people, places, relationships and events for an eponymous category to be anything other than a smallcat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  because it not written yet doesnt mean it wont be. Almost 18,000 online citations plus an additional unknown number of paper sources thats just about subjects related to Wee Jasper. Gnangarra 07:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  looking at the first magazing article its show a poem by one JR Rowland, called the Children of Wee Jasper there is also John Rowland (diplomat) and poet who happened to have lived in the area of Wee Jasper. The link needs more stringent research to confirm the connection but its another potential category item. It would have no relationship with YVC Gnangarra 07:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. The categories can be created if and when enough articles have been written. In the meantime, these remain smallcats which disrupt navigation.

Per WP:COPSEP, the convention is to categorise people in a "Category:People from FooPlace" category (if it exists), not in "Category:FooPlace" .. and per WP:COPPLACE, merely having lived in a place is not sufficient.

As to Gnangarra's claim that a search for the name indicates, Almost 18,000 online citations, that's more nonsense. First, Gnangarra's search is misconstructed, because it uses two words rather than a phrase. A search for the phrase "Wee Jasper" — https://trove.nla.gov.au/?keyword=%22Wee%20Jasper%22 — gives ~9,000 hits, not 18,000. And WP:GNG is not satisfied by passing mentions, so the number of mentions is a very poor guide to the number of notable topics where Wee Jasper is a WP:DEFINING characteristic.

The volume and variety of nonsense posted in this discussion by Gnangarra is highly disruptive. I am appalled that an editor can waste so much time in this way, all as a wheeze to evade two simple facts:

1. that there aren't enough article to populate these categories, and are unlikely to be in the foreseeable future
2. that there has been a spree of indiscriminate creation of geographical categories in NSW & Queensland, mostly by one editor, and Gnangarra is one of a small clique of Aussie editors whose only role has been to impede the cleanup of this disruptive creation spree by repeatedly ignoring both facts and categorisation guidelines.

There is a very simple solution to all this. Just delete the categories per WP:SMALLCAT ... and if at some future date there is enough content to populate them, then recreate them. Re-creation will take only a minute or two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there is no right or wrong, we have a differing opinion of the relationships between towns and local government authorities. BHG see these same entity with the same relationships to other towns and LGA's. Where as I see them as two entities with each having their own unique connections that are independent of each other because one was defined in the 1980's under Legislation along subsequent changes and the other was founded in 1860's. Why delete today what will be recreated tomorrow. Gnangarra 07:05, 5 August 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: reverse merge. bibliomaniac15 02:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Nintendo media to Category:Nintendo mass media

Nominator's rationale: Covers same topic and causes confusion when adding category template onto an image as one suggests it and another links to it. I will also support a merge in the other direction. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nominated. Mass media is the standard. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of the exceptional cases that I did not even look at the content of the category, and it is immediately unvealed per comment below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely reverse merge, as none of the contents are mass media – rather, they are Wikipedia media files (images and audio clips), and a valid sub-cat of Category:Video game media. Template:Media needs its coding priority to be reversed to use "Foo media" if it exists, rather than "Foo mass media" first.[5] Then, any remaining instances of media files in "mass media" categories will need to be renamed back to "media". Or perhaps that would be a good point to have a mass nomination to rename the Category:Video game media hierarchy to something like Category:Video game media files etc. ​​ – Fayenatic London 20:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mass renaming to "media files" sounds like a great idea. Much clearer.

@Fayenatic. How about I do a mass nom for this set of 95 categories ? ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Having 'files' or perhaps 'images' in the category title would be an improvement indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you BrownHairedGirl – yes please!
  • As for "images": most of the categories hold only images, but some also include .ogg audio samples. Among the files using ((media)), Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, Chrono, & Square have multiple audio files; Professor Layton has 2; Resident Evil, Silent Hill and Super Mario each have only 1. It might or might not be useful to have an "images" hierarchy within "media files". – Fayenatic London 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Related discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#Video_game_media_files. It's a group nomination, as suggested by @Fayenatic london above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge, to be clear (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:53, 27 July 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 since there is strong opposition to merger. I have instead added "See also" links between the pages so that navigation is still possible. If editors wish to add the articles into Category:Inverell Shire after all, that is an outcome which would normally be considered correct. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Inverell, New South Wales to Category:Inverell Shire

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the eponymous Inverell, New South Wales and two other articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Sibling Category:Myall Creek, New South Wales may be added in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there are significant difference between whats a component of the Town and whats a component of the Shire. Gnangarra 06:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gnangarra, if you prefer the just delete the category, I wouldn't oppose that. But the category is too small to keep, so it needs to be either deleted or merged.
    And in any case I don't see how a topic can be part of the town but not part of the shire. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl In Australia there are very distinct different concepts between what is the Town and what is a Local Government Authority. The Shire is a third tier government entity which covers a wide area of multiple places and activities. The Town is a specifically defined place that includes relationships that have no direct correlation to the activities of the Government authority. This also to many other towns you've nominated elsewhere. I suggest that rather than disjointed individual nominations it would be better to an RFC discussion through WP:AWNB where the depth of the issue can be resolved because all that will happen is these categories being recreated because of the conceptual and functional differences between the entities. Gnangarra 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gnangarra, you are making heavy going of this. This is a WP:SMALLCAT, so it needs to go. I have made two suggestions about what to do with it. Please make any other suggestions ... but we don't need an RFC about WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl-- as per WP:SMALLCAT unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, I'm not trying to be or make it difficult. I'm saying these are two separate entities that have differing relations with each other and also flows to other category structures, Inverell is town, Shire of Inverell is a local government authority it is not a town. That applies to all Category:Towns in New South Wales, The shire is part of Category:Local government areas of New South Wales Local Government Authorities have many towns within, and cover areas that are thousands of km². There are two different sets of statistical information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics as well as other state and federal agency having differing relationships. The fact someone inappropriately removed a category a couple of weeks ago[6] doesnt make this a reason to merge. Gnangarra 08:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • oh and RFC I suggested is about the structure of Australian Towns & Local Government Authority categories because they impact thousands of articles not smallcat. Gnangarra 08:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Gnangarra, there is no "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" of a category for every tiny location on the map. Even in New South Wales, where there a dozens of these smallcats for places with tiny population (or even no population), most localities do not have an eponmyous category.
              And that word "accepted" is crucial. Most of these categories appear to be product of smallcat-creation spree by one editor. I see no evidence that there has even been an RFC or other duly-notified discussion establishing a consensus to make Australian micro-settlements an exception to WP:SMALLCAT, or to establish a category-for-every-name-on-the-map. If I have missed such a discussion, please link to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @ these are two separate entities, they belong in two separate category trees.... A Local Government Authority is not a Town, and a Town is not a Local Government Authority. Gnangarra 10:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @@Gnangarra, that's a straw man. Nobody is claiming that a town is an LGA.
                  However, the town of Inverell is within Inverell Shire, so the town is a sub-topic of Inverell Shire. That's why Category:Inverell, New South Wales is subcat of Category:Inverell Shire ... and because it's to small a topic to have its own category, it should be merged to the parent.
                  If you believe that Inverell is not part of Inverell Shire, then you should be arguing for the article Inverell and all the other towns to be removed from Category:Inverell Shire .. which would almost empty the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • The town of Inverell is part of the Category structure Towns of NSW, the Iverell Shire is not part of that structure and has no direct relationship to it. As you correctly point out there is more one Town that falls within the Shire. The Shire is formed under the Local Government Act 1993[7] it is a distinct separate entity to the town and as the third tier of Government in fits under an entirely different set of categories because it serves an entirely different function. Gnangarra 02:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Of course towns are a different entity than shires, nobody denies that. The point at stake is that most town categories have too little content in them (with the exception of some bigger towns) so we should mostly stick to categorisation at shire level. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the problem with the merge proposal. Since the entire town Inverell is in Inverell Shire, Inverell Post Office is also in Inverell Shire. Deletion seems a worse option to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per Gnangarra - the town and the council are different things and should not be merged. Deus et lex (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, that is beside the point. Your oppose would make sense if this were about merging the articles about the town and the shire. But this discussion is about merging categories, and categories are about easy navigation from one article to related articles. That is a whole different thing. Since there are hardly any articles about the town, there is nothing to navigate to, if kept. The town category just hinders easy navigation to related articles about other things in the shire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and it denies navigation to articles related to the town which more people are likely to want to know. As before there more to a town than the Shire, with many things not related to shire taking place. Gnangarra 10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, but if there is hardly anything to navigate to the navigation becomes pointless. Articles about the shire are the closest you can get. That is what WP:SMALLCAT is about. It has nothing to do with the undisputed fact that the town and the shire are different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gnangarra is exactly right. I've learned recently that co-operation between editors is a really good thing, and just quoting policies at people will get you nowhere. Why not be helpful and try to find a compromise solution instead of just attacking everything he says? Deus et lex (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Deus et lex: Gnangarra is exactly wrong on all counts.

1. These are categories for tiny places, so they have little chance of expansion.
2. There is no policy or guideline to support the notion that we should have an eponymous category for every local govt unit, regardless of how little content exists to populate it
3. Both the Category:Inverell, New South Wales and the head article Inverell, New South Wales are already in the target Category:Inverell Shire. So it's daft to object to merging to a category which the pages are already in.

It's a pity that the passion of a few Australian editors isn't matched by attention to the facts.

Given all that, Deus et lex's choice to berate me for allegedly not being helpful and co-operative is a deeply obnoxious form of trolling. We are here to build and encyclopedia based on reliable sources and policies/guidelines .... so denouncing me for sticking to facts and upholding policies/guidelines is WP:NOTHERE conduct. This is one of several similar discussions in which Deus et lex has chosen to engage in this sort of trolling, and it is disgracefully disruptive conduct. Please stop it and strike it.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there is no right or wrong, we have a differing opinion of the relationships between towns and local government authorities. BHG see these same entity with the same relationships to other towns and LGA's. Where as I see them as two entities with each having their own unique connections that are independent of each other because one was defined in the 1980's under Legislation along subsequent changes and the other was founded in 1860's. Gnangarra 07:04, 5 August 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:Municipal councilors in Aichi Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Aichi Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Aomori Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Aomori Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Chiba Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Chiba Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Fukuoka Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Fukuoka Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Fukushima Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Fukushima Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Hokkaido to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Hokkaido‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Hyōgo Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Hyōgo Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Kagoshima Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Kagoshima Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Kanagawa Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Kanagawa Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Kōchi Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Kōchi Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Miyagi Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Miyagi Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Osaka Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Osaka Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Nagano Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Nagano Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Okinawa Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Okinawa Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Saitama Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Saitama Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Tochigi Prefecture to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Tochigi Prefecture‎
• Category:Municipal councilors in Tokyo Metropolis to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Tokyo Metropolis‎
• Category:Yokohama City Councilors to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Kanagawa Prefecture and Category:People from Yokohama
• Category:Osaka City Councilors to Category:Japanese municipal councilors and Category:Local political office-holders in Osaka Prefecture and Category:People from Yokohama

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, very few articles in all of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd rather see most of these tiny cats being deleted - the merge targets only contain the sub-cats for the most part. Being the thing itself is not notable, so the only contents are people who later became members of the national Diet etc. Johnbod (talk)

• Understandable, but we still have mayors in the Local political office-holders categories as well, so it would require a separate nomination to abolish that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I have nominated the target categories as well, see this follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 24 July 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: rename/upmerge. bibliomaniac15 00:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

• Category:Upcoming MMORPGs to Category:Upcoming massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:MMORPGs in fiction to Category:massively multiplayer online role-playing games in fiction
• Category:Text-based MMORPGs to Category:Text-based massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:Sports management MMORPGs to Category:Sports management massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:Space MMORPGs to Category:Space massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:Science-fiction MMORPGs to Category:Science-fiction massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:Nautical MMORPGs to Category:Nautical massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:Historical MMORPGs to Category:Historical massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:Fantasy MMORPGs to Category:Fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:Community-style MMORPGs to Category:Community-style massively multiplayer online role-playing games
• Category:MMORPGs by topic to Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games by topic
• Category:MacOS MMORPGs to Category:macOS massively multiplayer online role-playing games

Nominator's rationale: massively multiplayer online role-playing games/MMORPG and the name of the parent cat. There is no need for this inconsistency. Speedy was opposed because evidently, I had the same idea a decade ago. @Armbrust: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The expanded titles are too much of a mouthful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:C2D to match the main article, Massively multiplayer online role-playing game. Sticking to that admittedly lengthy naming convention best helps navigation from my viewpoint. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:C2D to match the main article, Massively multiplayer online role-playing game and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Might be a mouthful, but that its name. --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now: I think we probably need to assess these categories against WP:SMALLCAT before looking to rename - several have only 1 or 2 articles. Darren-M talk 20:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren-M: We're all here; let's assess them now. Are there some you want to upmerge? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RevelationDirect Sports management (2P), text-based (1P), Historical (2P), Community-style (4P), Nautical (4P) are all candidates for deletion and up-merging, I think. Not averse to retaining them if we think they're likely to grow in future, but I'm not convinced the majority of them will grow to that point. Best, Darren-M talk 23:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom or upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, dependent on size. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Upmerge above arguments seem to speak for themselves so I will just vote as I see fit. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:29, 21 July 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: rename. The centralised discussion has not so far reached a consensus to outweigh the discussion here. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Reed family to Category:Reed family (Pennsylvania and New Jersey)

Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation. The article Reed family is about a different family. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - my initial thought was of yet another Reed family. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to not conflict with the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by lack of an article, the family as such is apparently not notable. (Or rename per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was a criterion I think most family categories would go. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case it is an odd characteristic to categorize by. People are (nearly always) notable for their personal achievements rather than because they are a member of a family. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frequently it's just the opposite. For example, if siblings are home-schooled by parents who are noted scientists, chances are their own lives will be shaped into careers in the sciences, or at least will be naturally curious about the world, as a result. Actors are often the offspring of actors, simply because they were brought up in the milieu of the theatre. Athletes often have a genetic advantage if their parents were also both athletes. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But they will only be notable based on their own achievements. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• True - and as I pointed out,t here are frequently achievements they probably wouldn't have achieved if not for their upbringing. Take an example. Richard Hadlee was one of the world's greatest cricketers. He played in the same international side as brothers Dayle Hadlee and Barry Hadlee. His ex-wife, Karen Hadlee, was also a cricketer. How did Richard, Barry, and Dayle get so good? Backyard cricket practice as kids with their dad, international cricket captain Walter Hadlee. There is no Hadlee family article, not should their be - but a category? Definitely. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All of that does not apply to the category that we are currently discussing and generally I expect that families like Hadlee without having an article will be exceptional. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so much exceptional as the norm. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Marcocapelle, Grutness, and RevelationDirect: I have been thinking that we need some sort of centralised discussion on family categories. I will start something at WT:CATP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euh. I'd have thought "if it ain't broke" would apply... Grutness...wha? 06:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, @Grutness: I think it's badly broken in several respects. So I have started a centralised discussion on family categories at WT:CATP#Family_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 8 July 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: keep. bibliomaniac15 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Seaport District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only the head article Seaport District (of Boston MA) and one other. Both are adequately categorised, so need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I added several more articles. Should be appropriately populated now. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Slugger O'Toole I just checked one of your additions: Fort Point, Boston, which is a different district. That suggests that your additions have been indiscriminate. Please purge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  BrownHairedGirl, From the article: "At its broadest extent, it includes the land a few blocks on either side of the Fort Point Channel..." That would include the Seaport District. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  C'mon @Slugger O'Toole. A few blocks of overlap on a fuzzy boundary does not make a WP:DEFINING attribute. Informal districts usually have fuzzy boundaries, so your approach would lead to nearly every informal district being categorised under its neighbours. This is just bulking out the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  BrownHairedGirl, What I did was change a category of South Boston to the Seaport District, but your's is a fair point. I removed both. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for those removals, @Slugger O'Toole.
  I don't know the area firsthand, so there is a limit to assessments I can do without a lot of research. But I do see that if I applied WP:CATVER, by removing articles which don't contain a reliably-sourced assertion that they are in Seaport District, that would be quite a purge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  BrownHairedGirl, perhaps. However, CATVER also says "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." I think that is the case now, even if not every article has a source that says "Seaport District." The land the district sits upon has existed since (I think) the 1800s. It only gained its current identity in the last 10 or so years, however. Thus, you are unlikely to find a source for the 1916 Summer Street Bridge disaster that references the Seaport District, even if that's where we would say the bridge is today. I think this is one of those occasions where to WP:IGNORE the rule would most benefit the project. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, neighborhood categories should contain articles only, no subcategories since they are usually too ill-defined. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Seaport District is a neighborhood. This category has no subcategories. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: neighborhood categories such as Category:Neighborhoods in Boston should contain articles only, not subcategories like Category:Seaport District. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: why do you say that? In London, Category:Districts of London by borough has plenty of sub-sub-cats for districts = neighbourhoods, and that seems fine to me, and useful. But you seem to be stating that categories for neighbourhoods should never be permitted. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: districts of London are formal administrative units with distinct borders, that is very different from this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you have just described London boroughs. The categorised districts of London are neighbourhoods, mostly former villages, whose borders are not defined. They are a lot smaller than London boroughs, and IMHO their categories are therefore more useful for navigating between related places. – Fayenatic London 13:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I was intending to close this once Marcocapelle had clarified his comments, but after the above comment I am now WP:INVOLVED. Neighbourhood categories are useful even without defined boundaries. As for the inclusion of places around those fuzzy boundaries, note that with town/village categories we allow categorisation of nearby/adjacent places, e.g. parks near the Japanese villages in various CFDs below on this page. – Fayenatic London 16:23, 24 October 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 as still holding only two articles. – Fayenatic London 07:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gojōme, Akita (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only the head article Gojōme, Akita and one other. Both are adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there are six articles in the category. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, national routes, a biography and a park outside of town do not belong in a category about the town. WP:SMALLCAT still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have removed from this category:

1. Japan National Route 285
2. Japan National Route 7
3. Akita Expressway
4. Masashi Kudo (boxer)

Those roads are not DEFINEd by every municipality they pass through, and biographies are not categorised directly in geographical categories. Biogs go in "People from Foo" categories

That leaves only two pages in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 15 July 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 (as it still contains only 2 articles). – Fayenatic London 07:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nishimeya, Aomori (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only the head article Nishimeya, Aomori and two others. All three are adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 6 articles and one subcat. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, articles about geographical things near the village do not belong in a category about the village. WP:SMALLCAT still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: The category is for things related to the town. Not every article in the category has to be (or should be) about the town itself. Regardless of your opinion on the national park being in the cat, the clan subcategory more than makes up for that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nihonjoe: Marcocapelle is right. If we start filing up geographical categories with things places nearby but not in that area, the category system will become useless. Articles will be cluttered with irrelevant categories, and categories will fill up with articles from outside the area. This is a basic WP:DEFININING issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • See below. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have removed from this category the following pages:

1. Shirakami-Sanchi
2. Iwaki River
3. Category:Tsugaru clan

None of them even mentioned Nishimeya, Aomori, and Category:Tsugaru clan's head article Tsugaru clan also doesn't mention Nishimeya. So it's not a WP:DEFINING attribute.

That leaves only two pages in the category: Nishimeya, Aomori and Tsugaru Shirakami Prefectural Natural Park. So WP:SMALLCAT applies.

I fear that Nihonjoe (and maybe some other editors) have engaged in a widespread exercise of stuffing the categories nominated on this page with articles which also don't belong there per WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Could you stop assuming bad faith about me for once in your life? I went through the jawiki articles and added categories based on what was in the jawiki categories. It wasn't anything nefarious, so stop trying to make it out like I was trying to do something sneaky. As for the Iwaki River, it flows from Miyama Lake, which is right in the center of Nishimeya-mura, all the way through the eastern part of the village into Hirosaki, then north through a few more cities to Lake Jūsan, so it is in, not nearby the village. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: this is en.wp. Please can you follow en.wp categorisation policies and guidelines, rather than robotically copying from another website?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "robotically" copy everything over here. I only added the cat to those articles where I thought it fit. Obviously, you and Marcocapelle disagree with soem of them, and that's fine. If that lowers the number of articles to below the 5 needed to keep them, that's fine, too. There's nothing sneaky or nefarious about what I did, so stop trying to cast it in that light. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: you wrote went through the jawiki articles and added categories based on what was in the jawiki categories ... andI replied based on what you said. Please have the decency not to attack me for taking your words at face value.

If you are acting in good faith, then please demonstrate that good faith by going back through these categories which you populated, and removing the articles which fail WP:CATVER and/or WP:DEFINING. Leaving others to clean up after you would not be a sign of good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could the originator of this robotic onslaught against Japanese municipality categories please explain how all this acrimonious time-wasting helps Wikipedia users one iota. It appears from their comments above that having these categories is an "impediment" to navigation. As asked above, with no response forthcoming, when these helpful categories are added, with "potential" per WP:SMALLCAT, providing enhanced navigational possibilities both within the English wikipedia and, via the interwiki links, the other language wikipedias with corresponding municipality categories, the eg town is not removed from the Category:Towns of x prefecture category, so Tawaramoto is both a subcategory and a page within the Towns of Nara Prefecture Category, thus obviating the asserted problem; where is the impediment to navigation? Repeat where is the impediment to navigation cited in justification? In some Commons categories, eg for paintings by painter, you have to drill down paintings of nature>paintings of flowers>paintings of roses>paintings of x rose to see find one painting, but since Tawaramoto is both a page and a subcategory how does this robotic onslaught help? Where is the impediment? I believe the nominator indicated somewhere they used automated tools, seemingly with limited user oversight, to stumble upon these simultaneous pages and subcategories in the first place; per Augustus, festina lente. The nominator repeatedly claims eg only two pages; could the nominator please search first, shoot later, and stop wasting everybody's time; what is their view of this deletion version request? Miscategorization? Or all a waste of time? Where is the benefit for user navigation asserted? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis, I am the nominator. But since you have chosen once again to address me abusively, this time as the originator of this robotic onslaught, I will reply only to say that:

1. I responded almost two weeks ago to most of your points at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Japanese_municipality_categories (permalink)
2. Next time you post abusively, I will take the matter to ANI.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Currently two articles in the category, so category not needed per SMALLCAT. If some articles shouldn't have been removed, let me know. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 01:40, 5 October 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: keep as it contains 8 articles about the town, nearby villages, and adjacent prefectural parks. I have removed the biographies per WP:COP and the highways; these are still linked from the article on the town. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Naka, Tokushima (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only the head article Naka, Tokushima and 2 others. All three are adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there are seven articles in the category. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, biographies do not belong here and many articles in the category are not about the town. WP:SMALLCAT still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: The category is for things related to the town. Not every article in the category has to be (or should be) about the town itself. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that people visiting the category wouldn't find it weird to see people from the town listed in the category. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:52, 8 July 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: keep as it has 5 valid members – now 6 after adding the adjacent Misasa-Tōgōko Prefectural Natural Park. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kurayoshi, Tottori (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only the head article Kurayoshi, Tottori and 2 others. All 3 are adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category is currently at 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"most 'scruciating idle"... retention per WP:SMALLCAT ("potential", repeat, "potential", repeat "potential"); encouragement to cease and desist per WP:SMALLCAT? encouragement to discuss first and during per WP:civility, HUMAN:civility? Were one to use Wikipedia's search function to help populate the category (not that this is necessarily necessary per WP:SMALLCAT), one might find eg Tottori College, Sekigane, Tottori, and Misasa-Tōgōko Prefectural Natural Park, which presumably puts us over the 5 articles minimum suggested above, seemingly contrary to WP:SMALLCAT, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 7 articles in cat. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note As with many other of these Japanese smallcats, some editors have been adding articles indiscriminately in what looks like an attempt to game the system by padding the categories to a size that will defer deletion. I this case, I have removed:

1. Mount Daisen, per WP:CATVER. Kurayoshi is not mentioned in article.
2. Hōki Province. removed Category:Kurayoshi, Tottori -- a city may be categorised in a province, but this was categorising a province in a city

That leaves the category with 5 pages, including the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just to push this along and without knowing the unwritten norms of SMALLCAT, five articles seems sufficient to justify the category. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 01:37, 5 October 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. bibliomaniac15 18:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Solomon family to Category:Solomon family (rock music)

Nominator's rationale: disambiguation. The head article Solomon family is about an Australian family. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Open to alternate rename proposals but this needs to change to something per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by lack of an article about the family. (Or rename per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Related discussion. See centralised discussion on family categories at WT:CATP#Family_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Marco. WT:CATP#Family_categories has stalled but the points made about requiring notable of the family ring true. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 01:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of the central discussion, this category contains 3 bands (Hamakor (band), Moshav (band), Soulfarm) which IMHO do not belong in a family category; that leaves 3 biographies of musicians (Ben Zion Solomon, Noah Solomon, Yehuda Solomon) which is insufficient to keep the category. The biographies already have links to each other and to all the bands, so navigational links between them will remain. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 23 October 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. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Professional wrestlers who competed in the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. User:Namiba 12:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, worth mentioning as many wrestlers are known for this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it is sufficient to have them in the tree of Category:Olympic wrestlers. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete many Olympic athletes go on to professional endeavors the intersection isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - quite a few names. Could be useful in my opinion. Perhaps a redirect to another name or similar is possible.BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this should be a subcat of Category:Olympic wrestlers, which it is not (yet). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial intersection. Category:Olympic wrestlers and existing categories together are sufficient. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 01:23, 5 October 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: rename as Category:Glyphis (shark). czar 01:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Option A

• Category:Glyphis to Category:Glyphis (shark)

Option B

• Category:Glyphis to Category:River shark

Nominator's rationale: The bare title Glyphis is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is River shark, and the scientific name Glyphis (shark) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:10, 23 June 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anarchist parties to Category:Anarchist political parties

Nominator's rationale: Without "political" this category name can be misleading. I'd say this applies to the rest of the categories in this parent too (some add "political" to "parties" and others leave it off) but I'm particularly interested in this one for now. czar 21:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, what is misleading about this one? By the way, I would support a batch nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Are these events ("parties") by anarchists or political parties run by anarchists? I almost used it for the former but had to check. czar 21:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I see the point. Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk)

• Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Leaning to oppose. Yes, the adding of the word "political" makes the scope much clearer, but I can't see any reason for singling out this one subcat of Category:Political parties by ideology. If all the other subcats are nominated for a consistent renaming, then I will support ... but cherrypicking one example just damages the consistency of naming on which the category system relies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The parent category already uses both forms, so a rename here wouldn't be out of place. czar 01:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Czar: in Category:Political parties by ideology, 42 of the 46 categories for specific ideologies just use "parties". So there is a clear convention, with <10% exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In Category:Political parties by ideology, 42 of the 46 categories for specific ideologies just use "parties". So there is a clear convention, with <10% exceptions.
  We should uphold consistency, by either renaming the 4 outliers to match the convention ... and renaming the other 42 to create a new convention. But cherrypicking one article to increase the inconsistency is disruptive ... I AGF that it is not intentionally disruptive, but it has a disruptive effect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So to clarify, no one disagrees with this rename but for procedure that the rest of its sibling categories be nominated too, yet that larger nomination is held up because this one is still in progress? This all could have been resolved by now. czar 04:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: this nom could be withdrawn, or other categories could be added to this nomination. The reason this is held up is because the nominator has done neither, and has instead chosen to stick with their attempt to break a naming convention without establishing a new one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl, I wasn't aware I could add to this nomination this late. I'll message DannyS712 re: bundling the nom, unless there's another way to semi-automate the tagging. czar 21:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as the parent is Category:Political parties all the subcat names should include 'political'. Oculi (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Anarchist political parties are an oxymoron with no support from Anarchists, there are anarchist unions and anarchist grassroots movements such as food not bombs or IWW, but Anarchists aren't in parties and they don't vote. Anarchists being part of hierarchical organizations is like the idea of Anarchist Stalinism. Don't really care so long as its made clear Anarchists aren't engaged in parties. Vallee01 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As an update, since this has now been open for more than three months (!!), even the editor who maintains the tool for mass nominations thinks that it would be too much to nominate all "parties" → "political parties" categories at once. So after asking CfD regulars for advice, I consider the point here to be moot. The consensus of this discussion is clearly for making the change and if someone else would like to endeavor to nominate the full mass nomination list for general consistency, they're welcome to do so. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 01:14, 5 October 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: Not renamed as nominated; no prejudice against a fresh nomination to an alternative target Timrollpickering (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Croatian Canadian to Category:Croatian Canadians
• Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian Canadian to Category:Bulgarian Canadians
• Propose renaming Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadian to Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians
• Propose renaming Category:Welsh Canadian to Category:Welsh Canadians
• Propose renaming Category:Scottish Canadian to Category:Scottish Canadians

• Procedural nomination: Opposed speedy. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy discussion

Moved from WP:CFDS  – Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oppose this batch. @1234qwer1234qwer4: There was consensus at this discussion among others that these Booian Fooian categories should instead be moved to Category:Booian Fooian society, and there is also long-standing consensus that people categories should be at Category:Fooian people of Booian descent. This structure would make things a lot clearer, as I agree that these categories are currently very poorly named. See also these two relevant discussions from last year for sparsely populated categories. Place Clichy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Place Clichy: Thanks for the info; would you mind creating a CfD or should I? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @1234qwer1234qwer4: I don't mind if you create them. Place Clichy (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Since nothing has happened on this, I'll create the nomination. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pings to previous participants: @Place Clichy and 1234qwer1234qwer4. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category:Croatian Canadian society etc., oppose as nom. There was consensus at this discussion among others that these Booian Fooian categories should instead be moved to Category:Booian Fooian society, and there is also long-standing consensus that people categories should be at Category:Fooian people of Booian descent. This structure would make things a lot clearer, as I agree that these categories are currently very poorly named. See also these two relevant discussions from last year for sparsely populated categories. Place Clichy (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mdaniels5757 and 1234qwer1234qwer4: you have not expressed yourself so far about the proposed alternative. Any thoughts? Place Clichy (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nomination, weak support for alt rename, these are topic categories, not set categories, the names should certainly not be made plural. I don't like "society" very much, but admittedly that has become the standard. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Having an adjective as category title is not standard for sure. These are all leftover from a compulsive creator of (ethnic) categories of yesteryear and need to be taken care of. Per the previous discussion, I believe the society title, while not perfect, is a good enough description of the content. In some cases Fooian diaspora in Bar may be an alternative, but not all these groups are best described as diaspora and Fooian Canadian and Fooian American adjectives are widely used and understood. Place Clichy (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We had a mong discussion which resulted in the convention of Category:Fooian people of Booian descent. I note that the target is a cat-redirect to that. If we allow this to go through, the next nom will be to merge Category:Fooian people of Booian descent into it. The problem with Croatian Canadians is that it could refer to Canadians in Croatia or Croatians in Canada, which is why we went for that format, which applies everywhere (except USA, for some reason). A better solution would be to downmerge with Category:Canadians of Croatian descent; etc, which will provide such categories with main articles, even multiple main articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peterkingiron: please note that these categories are not about people, but about social and cultural aspects of these diaspora or ethnic groups. You are correct that biographical articles are to be located at Fooian people of Booian descent. This is why the confusion with these Booian Fooian categories is an issue. Would you care to consider a merge to an alternative target such as Booian Fooian society, as was already done for a large batch in this CfD? Place Clichy (talk) 09:14, 18 September 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: No consensus Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Destroyed landmarks by country to Category:Former buildings and structures by country

Nominator's rationale: After some research, our landmarks categories have been a mess for a long time. While certain municipalities have a landmark designation, I've been doing a lot of historic building tagging in the last couple weeks and have noticed some buildings have been tagged as "landmarks." Having categorised several hundred buildings now I have absolutely no idea when this designation would apply, as the definition I can find is "of interest to visitors," but even that is vague. Therefore, I propose that any buildings and structures in this category be moved to a buildings and structures category, either "former" or likely "demolished." Also note I'm proposing to do this merge manually because some landmarks are natural, but because of the scope, wanted to get permission first. (I also want to note that I support moving "Landmarks in Chicago" to "Designated landmarks in Chicago" to make it more obvious there's a legal definition, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the subcats - Destroyed landmarks of Foobar categories ? DexDor ^(talk) 18:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and purge per nom, but agree with DexDor that the subcategories should be tagged and listed as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Sorry about that - is there an easy way to do that in bulk or do I have some copying-pasting ahead? Feel free to keep this open a week from the confirmation those cats have been tagged. Some cats are part of other hierarchies and won't need tagging. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer: creation of the list is just tedious. With large numbers of categories I tend to unfold the tree and copy the unfolded tree from Wikipedia to Excel, in order to create the list with the help of Excel formulas, but still that is not easy either. After you have the list, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to do the tagging. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The subcats have now been tagged, please leave this open an extra three days if it's not relisted, sorry for the delay. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not all of the items in these cats are human-made. Pink and White Terraces doesn't count as a structure, I think? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment according to our article landmark, natural objects are included, so I cannot support the proposed renaming. However, we have so many categories under this Category:Former buildings and structures by country, which presumably encompasses the entire "landmark" schema except the natural objects. Given the context of what is a "landmark" (again, see our article and how it's used even in a local sense) when only articles on notable buildings and structures are included, I would venture to guess that landmark=the natural objects + the tree Category:Former buildings and structures by country and no more. So I think that the category should be emptied of all buildings and structures (which should be put in the right place in the Category:Former buildings and structures by country tree, and be put as a parent to that tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine with this, and perhaps a rename to "Destroyed natural landmarks." SportingFlyer T·C 06:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine with this too, apart from that it is going to require a huge amount of effort. Basically it means keep categories and purge the other way around. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so - I've looked at A thru C and have only found one natural landmark, Ripple Rock, in Canada. The vast majority of these are buildings or structures. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• merge into Category:Demolished buildings and structures. "Former" does not indicate that these places were intentionally destroyed. One needs to use either "destroyed" or "demolished", not just "former". Funandtrvl (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep, should keep categories for "Destroyed", "Demolished", "Ruins", "Damaged", and "Abandoned", because they all mean something different. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. 122.60.80.64 (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Spend more time on defining the 'landmark' (e.g., 'landmark, not being a building'). Also, an overlap is not problematic. If we cannot define it usably, we will end up with categories "things" and "former things" only. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The items in these categories are almost all buildings. There are cities where landmark is a formally defined term, but those categories should be worded as such. Plus, who is going to come up with the definition, and what sort of cleanup do you propose in the interim? SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community should. And, as you say but more widely: the category should describe itself. Next: "almost all" is the point. Where would we categorise 'landmarks' that are not a building or structure?

oops me late signing :-( -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As longs as we have the landmark category tree, a former landmark category seems entirely justifiable to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support manually removing buildings&structures articles from these categories, recategorizing the articles where necessary (although the sample I checked were all already in such categories), changing the category text to match this and deleting any categories that are then empty. DexDor ^(talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - troublingly vague. Natural landmarks can be moved to other categories as well, or simply kept as Category:Destroyed natural landmarks by country, with all the buildings and structures removed. ɱ (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/support. I'm not convinced by the keeps. The merge proposed by the nom suffices as a first step for clarifying the ambiguous "landmarks" into more precise categories. Any other landmark categories should use "designated landmarks" to denote the difference. Separate category for "destroyed natural landmarks" where the landmark is not a building/structure makes sense too. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 01:32, 5 October 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: rename to Category:Butler-Belmont family. bibliomaniac15 00:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Butler family to Category:Butler family (South Carolina)

Nominator's rationale: disambiguation. Butler family is a disambiguation page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename to Category:Butler-Belmont family per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt. rename to Category:Butler-Belmont family, per Marcocapelle (and Butler-Belmont family). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The ALT rename to Category:Butler-Belmont family (per the article Butler-Belmont family) is fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 27 July 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. bibliomaniac15 00:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Semi-Retired Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category groups users who declare that they are less active than they were before; currently, it contains just one user. While it may be useful to know whether a specific user is "semi-retired"—at least, it is a user's prerogative to declare himself or herself as such—the user page notice serves that purpose amply and there is no added value in grouping users who are still-active-but-less-so (a subjective criterion, if ever there was one). This category seems to be a variant of Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active and Category:Wikipedians who are partially active, which were deleted at CfD, endorsed at DRV, and re-endorsed at CfD; therefore, speedy deletion (G4) may be appropriate, too. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. This serves no useful purpose. --Bduke (talk) 00:55, 28 July 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: rename with redirect bibliomaniac15 00:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films directed by P. Bharathiraja to Category:Films directed by Bharathiraja

Nominator's rationale: Match the parent article, Bharathiraja. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The article was renamed recently (diff), and reasonably so based on usage in sources cited within the article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but also keep a soft-redirect too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 27 July 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.