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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Sports competitors with improper capitalization. As far as I could tell, there's no speedy deletion criterion for duplicate categories, but if there is, I'd love to know about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very obviously. The quickest way to get this done is if creator would add a ((Db-self)) to the page. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category has been emptied. Firefangledfeathers, why do you nominate a category for a deletion discussion if you are just going to empty it out of process? It wastes the time of editors who come here to offer their opinion on what should be done with a category. Please do not do this in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Liz. First time! FYI, your ping didn't come through, possibly because tweaking the sig date wasn't enough. See H:PINGFIX for more reliable methods. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Firefangledfeathers: WP:C2 rationales cover speedy merges as well as speedy renames. Alternatively, after emptying it while recording clear rationales in the edit summaries, you could have used WP:C1 by tagging it with ((db-empty)). – Fayenatic London 14:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Fayenatic! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: sorry, everyone, for the out-of-process category emptying. If it helps: here are some of the pages that were in it:
  • Nikolaj Sørensen
  • Shannon Archer
  • Lewis Gibson (figure skater)
  • Laurence Fournier Beaudry
  • Lilah Fear
  • Madison Chock
  • Louis Smith (gymnast)
  • Nile Wilson
  If it would be more helpful to see the full list, ping me and I'll copy it on over. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Commons users who use Canon products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per, for example, WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by technology. If kept, rename to "Wikipedians who use Canon products", since this is Wikipedia, not Commons. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Canon has a whole range of products but what do they have to do with Wikipedia? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does not support collaboration to know which users use a particular brand of products, and therefore fails WP:USERCAT. Category also has an improper naming convention of using "users" instead of "Wikipedians". VegaDark (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 22 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian Canadian football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function - contains only one user who has been inactive since 2012. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does not support collaboration to know which Wikipedians play a particular sport, and therefore fails WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2022 (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: speedy merge WP:C2A. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the military history to Category:Wikipedians interested in military history

Nominator's rationale: Obvious duplicates. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this is extremely obvious. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (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:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian methods. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Very unclear what this category is supposed to be categorizing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Bayesian inference is a topic within statistics so the single member of this category would probably be better off in Category:Wikipedian statisticians. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as distinct from Category:Wikipedian statisticians. I didn't make this category but it seems to have been redlinked when I added User:Scepia/Bayesian to my userpage as a userbox, and then @Bearcat: made it (who was not notified of this CFD). Bayesians are not the same as frequentists who comprise the vast majority of statisticians and it would be a mistake to obscure the difference between the two. I feel like this category follows the guidelines at WP:USERCATYES, "Categories which group users by knowledge or understanding of a topic". Axem Titanium (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A userbox is fine, of course, with categories I am not so sure we need to make it this black and white. There may lots of people in Category:Wikipedian statisticians who sufficiently know about Bayesian inference without being a self-declared Bayesian. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I "created" this only because it was a redlink that had to be cleared off Special:WantedCategories — but with absolutely no idea what else I was supposed to actually do with it, the only option was to "create" it as an uncategorized category in the hopes that somebody else would be able to figure it out. So my "creation" of the category was not an endorsement of the category, it was merely cleaning clutter off a maintenance tool that has to have clutter cleaned off of it. I would note, however, that firstly the core purpose of user categories is to facilitate collaboration, not just to advertise affiliational trivia — and the issue here is that the redlink suddenly came into existence because Axem Titanium used a deprecated old userbox template that hasn't actually been used on any other userpages in well over a decade. That said, in fact we already have another category, Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian methods, to cover off the same area of interest — so really the best solution here is to adjust User:Scepia/Bayesian (the userbox in question) so that it uses the established category instead of this. Retention as a category redirect won't be necessary if the template is automatically filing pages in the established category instead. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a merge to this preexisting category. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As do I. The reason I didn't notify Bearcat of any of these discussions (and notified the members of the category instead) was because I knew the context of the creation, and the reason I didn't originally suggest merging is that "This user is a Bayesian", linking to Bayesian (a redirect to a list) did not give me enough information. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bearcat, thank you for finding the proper target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:November 1953 sports events in Mexico to Category:November 1953 sports events in North America
• Propose merging Category:November 1951 sports events in Mexico to Category:November 1951 sports events in North America
• Propose merging Category:May 1950 sports events in Mexico to Category:May 1950 sports events in North America

Nominator's rationale: One event in each category. And only one month in each year diffused. Merge to MONTH YYYY sports events in North America. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. I have been looking at parts of the events by month tree earlier and it came across as set up way too broadly, with large amounts of very sparsely populated categories and lots of months missing. Start grand and end almost empty is not the best strategy for categorization.Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all as WP:SMALLCAT that don't need diffusing this way. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Double merge to other parents where needed, e.g. to Category:May 1950 events in Mexico, which is not the only month category in Category:1950 events in Mexico by month. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Initially I thought double merge too, but Category:1950 events in Mexico by month is terribly badly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Supporters' Shield to Category:Major League Soccer trophies and awards

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer containing just one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 20:10, 22 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Major League Soccer most valuable player awards to Category:Major League Soccer trophies and awards

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it only contains two redirects and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Soccer have many types of MVP Awards such as Regular Season MVP award, MLS Cup MVP award, MLS All-Star Game MVP award. And there is a sub category - category:Major League Soccer MVPs about Regular Season MVP award winners

I don't think that this is redundant category layer. In my opinion, Category:Major League Soccer most valuable player awards is useful category for users who search for various MLS MVP information.

If there is no category:Major League Soccer most valuable player awards, Users have to check out information respectively about Regular Season MVP, MLS Cup MVP award, MLS All-Star Game MVP award

In conclusion, category:Major League Soccer most valuable player awards have good classification function.

Footwiks (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers will never reach this category page because there is not even a single article linking to it. Categorization is not about having "good classification function" but about easily finding related articles. Categorization is not a purpose in itself, it is a tool to navigate between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. GiantSnowman 20:09, 22 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Major League Soccer MVPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, award winners categories are routinely deleted with very few exceptions (e.g. Nobel prize winners is an exception). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know in detail about regulation of award winners category.

By the way, currently there are many sports award winners category in wikipedia.

For example

Category:National Football League Most Valuable Player Award winners

Category:Big Ten Athlete of the Year winners

and so on.

Only deletion of MLS MVP award winners category. This is unfair. I think that MLS MVP award winners are notable. So this category can become exception.

I also think that we need much discussion and consensus about Sports award winners category. Footwiks (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other stuff exists" is not a reason to pause any XfD nomination. It just means that these other categories should be nominated for deletion too. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain in detail why only Category:Major League Soccer MVPs should be deleted?

  Now you are aware of that there are many sports award winners categories such as Category:National Football League Most Valuable Player Award winners and Category:Big Ten Athlete of the Year winners

  If you based on regulations, In my humble opinion, you also attach the deletion template to Category:National Football League Most Valuable Player Award winners and Category:Big Ten Athlete of the Year winners

  Footwiks (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read "other stuff exists" once more, because that is the answer to your question. The suggestion that only Category:Major League Soccer MVPs should be deleted is a wrong reading of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, The issue in this discussion is vague and I don't know how to procced this discussion.

  So I have a question. Do I understand your point and rationale?

  You think that Major League Soccer Most Valuable Award is not notable award

  So you want to delete Category:Major League Soccer MVPs about Major League Soccer MVP award winners.

  And

  You think that National Football League Most Valuable Player Award and Big Ten Athlete of the Year Award and other Sports award winners categories are notable awards.

  So you don't attach delete templete.

  Therefore, In discussion, In order to rise a counterargument, Do I have to verify the notability of Major League Soccer Most Valuable Award?

  If my supposition is correct, There are many news articles about Major League Soccer Most Valuable Award including major press and foreign press.

  I think that Major League Soccer Most Valuable Award is notable and Category:Major League Soccer MVPs should be not deleted.Footwiks (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per noms. GiantSnowman 20:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many sports award winners category as belows.

  Do we have to attach the category deletion template and discuss respectively? This is waste of time and unproductive.

  With this as a momentum, Let's build a consensus about all sports award winners category.

  Category:Ballon d'Or winners

  Category:Big Ten Athlete of the Year winners

  Category:National Football League Most Valuable Player Award winners

  Category:American League Most Valuable Player Award winners

  Category:National League Most Valuable Player Award winners

  Category:Major League Baseball All-Star Game MVPs

  Category:American League Championship Series MVPs

  Category:National League Championship Series MVPs

  Category:World Series Most Valuable Player Award winners

  and so on. Footwiks (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mass nominations almost never work because there is always the chance of one or two exceptions. In this case, someone may argue that one of these awards does have the same status as the Nobel prize. But of course if you wish to start a fresh discussion about all these categories simultaneously, you can do so. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nigerian disability table tennis players to Category:Nigerian disabled table tennis players

Nominator's rationale: Renaming all the disability sportspeople to disabled sportspeople . Mason (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the category discussed above. This is a redundant category layer with only one subcategory and other countries do not have this type of category either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Marcocapelle is referring to Category:Nigerian disability sportspeople
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Marcocapelle. Oculi (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Nigerian disabled sportspeople which I think the above users are proposing, although it's not 100% clear. VegaDark (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is exactly the intention, the target has only just been renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:11th-century historians from the Fatimid Caliphate to Category:Historians from the Fatimid Caliphate, Category:11th-century people from the Fatimid Caliphate and Category:11th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Al-Andalus exiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category is based on a modern concept that does not do justice to the reality of the time. Many medieval Muslim scholars travelled through different Muslim "countries" and/or settled in a different "country" than they grew up in. (Country in quotation marks because it were merely areas that happened to be ruled by certain dynasties. Some of these countries did not even have a name, only the dynasty had a name. Moreover Al-Andalus wasn't a country in the modern sense.) They stayed within the Muslim world though. A true exile would have been if they would settle in the Christian world but that is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Exile is an ancient concept, and we haver a large number of articles on exiled Greeks and Romans. Dimadick (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what about re-purposing as Category:People banished from Al-Andalus? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:50, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Motion capture in video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: An overly broad category. Nearly all big-budget video games since the 2010s used motion capture. No longer a defining characteristic. OceanHok (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Before I created this category, the parent category was overloaded with video games. I also strongly reject the premise that nearly all modern video games use motion capture. Nintendo, one of the largest video game developers, rarely uses motion capture. There are tons of big budget games that either don't have human characters or go for a stylistic animation that don't use motion capture. I won't be opposed to moving this to performance capture though and narrow the scope to only when facial expressions are recorded for performance capture. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is if sources usually mention whether facial expressions are recorded for performance capture as a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose changing name Category:People educated at Kavanagh College to Category:People educated at Trinity Catholic College, Dunedin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The school has now changed its name.Yelsorc (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yelsorc: Category:Persons educated at Kavanagh College does not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but using 'People', as at present. (I have taken the liberty of modifying the nom.) Oculi (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course..Yelsorc (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:National LGBTQ Wall of Honor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a non-defining honor. (Note: per Wikipedia rules, to have a separate category, it must be defining for the majority of recipients, meaning it is a central aspect according to reliable sources that would be worthy of mention in the lead of the article). I checked five recipients at random: Gilbert Baker (artist), Leslie Feinberg, Christopher Lee (activist), Marsha P. Johnson, and Virginia Uribe. The award was mentioned in the article, with boilerplate text that seemed to have been copied and pasted, but did not seem to be prominently covered in reliable sources or the lead of the article sufficient to consider it defining for any of them. The category is already listified at National LGBTQ Wall of Honor; it should be deleted as non-defining. (t · c) buidhe 06:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

£97<¥£ like your issue is with the quality of the articles, in which case AFD the articles you think have the types of issues you mention or perhaps even with the choices the Stonewall National Monument voters made. But this category is no different than one for baseball members who were inducted into Cooperstown or musicians into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Our place, in this case, is to verify that the organization is legit and the people who are added to the category are honorees. So, if your issue is with the quality of the articles there, it is not the organization’s fault or the category’s. Ask for better sources if you are not satisfied. In fact, look for sources yourself so you know they meet your standards. But again, that is an issue with the article. Not the category. The honoree has been verified. That is all that matters. BostonMensa (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD, award winners categories are routinely deleted with very few exceptions (e.g. Nobel prize winners is an exception). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCAWARD Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Saskatchewan United Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a political party without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify one. This is a new minor party that was registered just three weeks ago, so the only articles to file here at this time are the eponym and the party's leader -- this would be fine if there was other stuff to file here, like several other MLAs and leadership conventions, but is not necessary for just two articles. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is just too early. The category may well be reinstated when there is more content available. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2022 (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 21:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:East Timor–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category solely for the eponym, with no other potential contents readily locatable. As always for X-Y relations categories, this would be fine if there were several articles to file here, but is not needed for just one article. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Isle of Man women Twenty20 International cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a list. This would be fine if the list actually contained any blue links that could actually be filed here to populate the category, but it doesn't -- it's an entirely unlinked list and a spotcheck of random names within it failed to turn up anybody who has an article that got overlooked. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when five or six of the people actually have articles, but it aids navigation not a whit to have a category just to hold the list alone. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the spirit of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep agreed. I think I created this one erroneously. Bs1jac (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Until there's suitable articles for inclusion, I agree with deletion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Vehicles used by the United States Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. Happening to be used in a government fleet is not a defining characteristic of the vehicle. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it is definitely defining for the car to be part of the United States Postal Service fleet, but the article is already in Category:United States Postal Service. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Episodes of Star Trek in which the ship is taken over (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by plot point. Wikipedia does not have any scheme of "Episodes of [Show] in which [thing] happens" for this to be a part of. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Founded by La Saints Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT with a bad name not consistent with any Wikipedia naming convention. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a category tree by founder may well be acceptable, but it does not help when it remains so poorly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ohio Brass Company employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by employer, very analogous to a WP:PERFCAT violation. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, we do have a tree of Category:People by company but in this case it does not seem defining enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I created the cat, thinking it would be useful, but don't have any strong feelings either way. If the folks who specialize in cats feel it's not useful, I'm fine with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Events in 2023 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have any "Events in YYYY" scheme for this to be a part of. Categories like this would be too massive and poorly defined to be useful, so events by year are split up more specifically -- e.g. Category:2023 events by month, Category:2023 awards, etc. -- rather than just being lumped together as "Events in YYYY", so there's no purpose in retaining this if we don't have "Events in YYYY" categories for any year preceding 2023. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Existing cat tree is sensible, and this outlier is not needed. If we want to park all the "YYYY events by month" in "YYYY events" supercategories, we should do so consistently. I would oppose such a move, which would add branches to the tree for no benefit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, most are already in sub-cats of the relevant tree e.g. Category:March 2023 sports events in Japan, and the others are otherwise properly categorised in 2023. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons already mentioned. Kante4 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kishore Kumar Mohanty family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a member of an Indian state legislature (not an officer of the legislature, either, but just a regular legislator of no particularly exalted status) and his wife. Something like this would be fine if there were five or six or ten articles to file together, but it's not needed for just two people. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Two-entry WP:SMALLCAT, not aiding navigation. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree but merge to Category:Institutions run by Mata Amritanandamayi Math which has been nominated above. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Women in Entertainment Power 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on the basis of inclusion in an outside organization's proprietary (and copyrighted) ranking list, which is not a defining characteristic. For added bonus, this is an annual list, within which some people may drop off the list entirely and other new people may be added to it each year, meaning it's a fluctuating characteristic -- and our article about the list only deigns to document the top 10 (not the entire Top 100) for just five years in a previous decade, meaning that inclusion in the list isn't even properly verified in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am the category creator. I do not agree to this rationale, as any past recipient can be in this category. I have already added a few people. So past recipient do not need to drop off. It does not have any "YEAR" associated with it. I cannot speak to the copyright issue, but I do not think we are violating any copyright issues here. If that was the case, there are hundreds of other categories in violation that use company copyrighted names. You may want to check that dozens of award categories exist already without any copyright issues. Examples:

David di Donatello Career Award winners

Ivor Novello Award winners

Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe (film) winners

Grammy Award winners

Golden Globe Award-winning musicians

Brit Award winners

Threevian (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists which rank people in numerical order are not the same thing, and do not work the same way, as awards. An award isn't copyrighted; a listicle is. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD, with very few exceptions (e.g. Nobel Prize winners is an exception) we routinely delete award winners categories. This is not an award we should make an exception for. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non defining award. (t · c) buidhe 06:28, 21 December 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:GreenPAC Endorsed Candidate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. The commonality here is that the people in the category were all endorsed by an organization that is not itself a political party, which is not a defining characteristic of these people. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created this category and am for keeping it (no surprise). GreenPac is an organization that vets candidates on the environment. It is non-partisan and works with all political parties. It is like winning an award, to be nominated by GreenPac. For voters who care about the environment, it is a seal of approval. Although, not a Nobel or an Emmy, it is as valid for citizens of Canada who care about a sustainable future. mgifford (talk)21 December 2022
• Keep - I don't see an issues keeping this one. It defines certain candidates in a certain category. Threevian (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It defines nobody in no "category", because endorsements from outside groups are things done to the candidates rather than by the candidates. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Often elections in multi-party elections are close. If GreenPAC is critical in helping a candidate win a campaign, then I would say it was relevant to that persons identity. Being an endorsed candidate has shown up on lawn sites for politicians such as successful politicians such as Catherine McKenna.
• Delete, trivial and non-defining characteristic. The articles barely mention the endorsement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non defining endorsement. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is something that has been an important issue in Canadian elections. Finding canadidates across the platform who have been vetted by a group of experts for having concerns about the environment is important.

  GreenPac is an non-partisan organization that works with all political parties in Canada to support green.

  This is much more relevant than the year of their birth for most Canadian voters. Mgifford (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• GreenPac may well be more relevant in the public debate but the question here is what defines each individual person and that is a different question. The fact that GreenPac is generally relevant is reflected in it having its own article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a category for every group of candidates that was ever endorsed by any activist group on any issue? No. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2022 (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.