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. – Fayenatic London 15:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merge Category:506 in Armenia to Category:6th century in Armenia, to Category:506 in Europe and to Category:506 in Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge It doesn't make sense to create an isolated year category while the whole medieval history of Armenia is categorized by century. (Note: after this merge a number of intermediate categories will become empty and can be deleted.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Little prospect of it getting enough siblings to be worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merge Category:1062 establishments in Armenia to Category:11th-century establishments in Armenia, to Category:1062 establishments, to Category:1062 in Europe and to Category:1062 in Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge It doesn't make sense to create an isolated year category while the whole medieval history of Armenia is categorized by century. (Note: after this merge a number of intermediate categories will become empty and can be deleted.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think oppose the and in 'to Category:1062 in Europe and to Category:1062 in Asia'. I don't believe that Japan is in Europe. Maybe and 'or'? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Armenia instead of Japan, obviously. I would be fine with and/or, though I noticed that it's currently parented to both continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Little prospect of it getting enough siblings to be worthwhile. I have my doubts on whehter Armenia is in Europe, but that is perhaps my POV: if the precedent is that it is in both Europe and Asia we need both targets. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is the kind of usercategory we want on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories regarding "irrelevant likes". Debresser (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Trivial, and irrelevant to collaboration (which is the only legitimate purpose of usercats). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• ok, Delete than. I thought of having Categories for users by ability or interest...but might be too vague--B3430715 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of Category:Musicians, with dubious value — the difference between a "musician" and a "musical performer" would be, er, what exactly? Given what's actually categorized in here, I can marginally see what the creator was trying to get at (subcats Category:Artistic and performing robots and Category:One-man bands, four articles about types of musicians). But naming it this way, they missed — I just had to remove several individual people, on whom it was serving no substantive purpose except as a redundantly redundant repetition of other Category:Musicians subcategories that they were already in. Upmerge to Category:Musicians (or rename if somebody can figure out a clearer and less ambiguous way to name a "much better distinguished from its parent" subcategory for one-man bands and dancing glee club robots and troubadours and virtuosi.) Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to musicians: there may be some composers who do not perform, but I doubt it is many. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Musicians. There is absolutely no reason why such articles cannot sit directly in the main musicians category. SFB 13:59, 5 April 2015 (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: Withdrawn by nominator. Redrose64 (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia classification templates to Wikipedia categorization templates

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that "classification" means anything in this context. The distinction between this category and the parent Category:Category namespace templates is unclear so perhaps this should be merged into that category. DexDor ^(talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as categ creator). "Classification" in this case means Wikipedia:Classification: "A Classification is used on category pages to show the hierarchy of the category".

These templates are all used to display that hierarchy. See e.g. Template:Fooian fooers, as used on 4691 categories including Category:Irish civil engineers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. @BHG - could you check whether Template:Category ordered by date belongs in this category. DexDor ^(talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, DexDor, and thanks for the withdrawal.

Template:Category ordered by date belongs in Category:Category namespace templates, where I have just moved it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pelvic inflamatory disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In theory this could be a valid category, but very few (if any) of the articles that have been placed in the category (examples) actually belong in it. DexDor ^(talk) 18:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - PID remains one of the most preventable and curable diseases worldwide and the reason that this is not generally known is precisely because all of the article/topics that have been placed in the category are interrelated according to the most recent and reliable medical sources. There are 340 million 'new' cases worldwide. Millions of others have the disease and don't know it. To adequately provide information that ties all these topics together and the role that they play in the diagnosis, epidemiology, the cure, prevention, and the treatment a category is appropriate. Respectfully,

  Bfpage |leave a message  18:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles that you put into the category (some examples) don't even mention PID so it can hardly be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those topics! "that this is not generally known is precisely because all of the article/topics that have been placed in the category are interrelated" doesn't make any sense. DexDor ^(talk) 20:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These examples now mention PID in the article.   Bfpage |leave a message  01:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this is a splendid example of an eponymous category with no valid content. Oculi (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Eponymous' might not be the precise term to use since nothing is being named after anyone or anything.   Bfpage |leave a message  09:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Oculi meant a topic category; a topic category can have an eponymous article (same name as category), but a set category (with a plural title) wouldn't normally have an eponymous article. DexDor ^(talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—there is already a good category for this concept at Category:Inflammatory diseases of female pelvic organs, the contents of which are accurate and appropriate. There is nothing in the category under discussion that needs to be merged into this one, hence my delete !vote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammation is not the same thing as an infection, which is PID. It would be misleading to include any of the articles listed below in Inflammatory diseases of female pelvic organs because inflammation is simply a symptom of a bigger problem. Inflammation can be caused by PID, but it can also be caused by other diseases.  Bfpage |leave a message  10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several responses: 1) Sub-category N73.9, which is the default ICD-10 code for Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, has an inclusion term saying that the concept includes infection or inflammation; 2) See this page for what the World Health Organization defines as Inflammatory diseases of the female pelvic organs. You will notice that PID is a subset of this set of disease concepts; 3) If you read my comment above carefully you will see that I don't wish to include any of the articles you have listed below into the already existing category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if kept, the spelling of "inflammatory" should be corrected. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am mortified by my spelling mistakes but am grateful to have them pointed out.   Bfpage |leave a message  10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here is further explanation of the connective-ness of these articles:

Articles and their relationship to PID:

• Abstinence – recommended by the CDC to prevent PID

• Abstinence-only sex education - see above

• American Society for Reproductive Medicine - publishes info on PID

• Appendicitis – symptoms of PID can mimic symptoms of appendicitis

• Azithromycin – used to treat PID

• Bacterial vaginosis – can preceed PID

• Boggy uterus – can be a symptom of PID

• Ceftiaxone – used to treat PID

• Cervical intrepithelial neoplasia – tissue disease caused by PID

• Chlamydia infection – an infection that progresses to PID

• Chlamydia trachomatis – the pathogen that can cause PID

• Cipprofloxacin – used to treat PID

• Condome – recommended by the CDC to prevent PID

• Congenital syphilis – a consequence of untreated PID

• Direct fluorescent antibody – a diagnostic tool to detect PID

• Doxycycline – used to treat PID

• Ectopic pregnancy – a possible outcome of PID

• Endometritis – a possible outcome of PID

• Erythromycin – used to treat PID

• Female infertility – a possible outcome of PID

• Female promiscuity – a risk factor in having PID

• Gonnococcal infection – a cause of PID

• Human female sexuality – a broad topic that should include PID and its serious sequel

• Human sexual activity – directly related to the risk of having PID

• Hysterosalpingography – a diagnostic tool to assess damage from PID

• Macrolide – used to treat PID

• Metronidazole – used to treat PID

• Mollicutes – a group of bacteria that causes PID

• Mucopurulent discharge – a symptom of PID

• Mycoplasma – a genera of bacteria that causes PID

• Mycoplasma fermentans – a bacteria that causes PID (BPID)

• M. genitalium – BPID

• M. hominis – BPID

• M. penetrans –BPID

• Mycoplasmataceae –

• N. gonorrhoeae – BPID

• Neonatal sepsis – a possible fatal infection caused by maternal PID

• Nitroimidazole – used to treat PID

• Nucleic acid test – used to id the pathogens causing PID

• Party and play – a risk factor in acquiring PID

• Pelvic exam – used to diagnose PID

• Peritonitis – a symptom of PID

• Prostatitis – a symptom of carrying the pathogen that causes PID

• Quinolone – used to treat PID

• Reproductive health – a topic which includes the prevention of PID

• Safe sex – a topic which includes the prevention of PID

• Sexual health clinic – a facility that treats PID

• Sexual intercourse – a risk factor in acquiring PID

• Sexually transmitted infection – can cause PID

• Strawberry cervix – a symptom of PID

• Tetracycline antibiotics – used to treat PID

• Trichoonas vaginalis – pathogen of PID

• Tubal factor infertility – a consequence of PID

• Ureaplasma infection- a cause of PID

• U. urealyticum – a BPID

• Urethritis – a symptom of PID

• Vaginal disease – a precursor and risk factor of PID

• Vaginal flora – lists the non-causes of PID

• Vaginitis – a possible symptom of PID

• Vertically transmitted infection – the transmission of pathogens of PID to newborn infants

• Vulvogaginal health – PID prevention and risk factors

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how WP:Categorization works; if it was an article like Sexual health clinic would be in a category for everything a clinic could possibly treat - hundreds (possibly thousands) of categories. DexDor ^(talk) 21:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant as Beeswaxcandle pointed out. Also currently an undefined category. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:21, 23 April 2015 (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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings for the next attempt.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Churches in Ukraine by city to Category:Church buildings in Ukraine by city
• Propose renaming Category:Churches in Kiev to Category:Church buildings in Kiev
• Propose renaming Category:Churches in Lviv to Category:Church buildings in Lviv
• Propose renaming Category:Churches in Zhovkva to Category:Church buildings in Zhovkva
• Propose renaming Category:Churches in Crimea to Category:Church buildings in Crimea

Nominator's rationale: To distinguish the buildings from the Christian denominations in those cities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose: I'm completely perplexed as to how these are going to improve the categories. Various forms of buildings following various styles adhering to historical denominational architectural styles are listed in the existing categories. Some of them are still being used for active practice, others are heritage sites. The only method by which changing the nomenclature would make sense is to, then, create sub-cats for those still used actively by worshippers/adherents by any given denomination. While I can understand that you're attempting to create categories outside of the initial religious functions of these buildings, there are by no means enough examples to merit such a convoluted system of categorisation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm creating nothing. These categories exist; my proposal is to change the name to reflect what they are - buildings as opposed to congregations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've changed my 'comment' to 'oppose'. You've ignored the heart of the matter I was querying: that of there being a distinction between heritage/national trust and de-consecrated architectural examples, and that of active congregational/religious centres. As an atheist, I have no personal stake in such considerations, but there is a prominent distinction which reflects the reality of religious worship. Conflating the two is ignoring the principle rationale behind their existence where they are still actively in use: that is, they're not simply architectural features. An active synagogue is not just an architectural style; an active mosque is not just an architectural building; an actively used Buddhist temple is not just an architectural building; etc. I believe Od Mishehu's proposal to be a far more sensible method of cleaning up the category tree. While I understand that you're trying to disambiguate 'religious denomination' from architecture, I don't consider this to be the way to do it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Ambiguous category names are not helpful and result in the conflation of different types of objects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- a church is both a building and the community that worships in it. We need to be wary of limiting "church" to a building, which is a misconception of unbelievers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: I agree with this statement, but it raises the much bigger question of why churches are primarily given locational and place categories and not personal ones. I find most church articles to be very focused on the place rather than the people and its undertakings (one random example). I think this reveals a great deal about Wikipedia's focus and prejudices. Not least, the notability criteria easily permit a building-based article, yet prove a barrier to a congregation-specific article (e.g. Congregation of Dundee Parish Church (St Mary's)) when arguably the latter topic is as, if not more important. We're terrible at reflecting local communities, while at the same time allow space for many individual people of little note. I think Wikipedia is being both informed by and engendering the atomisation of society – the ultimate irony for a community-led project (though ego does mean we find space for ourselves!). SFB 14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as a separate nomination - we need to tackle the whole Category:Church buildings cateory tree - I see no reason that these categories shouldn't match (for example) Category:Churches in the United States. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but agree with Od Mishehu that this debate needs to take place at a higher level when the same problem applies to national level categories. The national level ones have even greater impetus as the confusion with church bodies applies more often to national, rather than city level categories. SFB 14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment -- My previous comment resulted from us having two trees, one for church buildings and the other for church communities (congregations). In some cases, a notable congregation will be meeting in a NN building; in others, vice versa; in others, again, both will be notable. At one point, some years ago, a lot of the articles were (rather ridiculously) expressed as congregations, meaning that in some places there were "congregations" that had existed for 800 years. There may have been a congregation for 800 years, but the people constituting it had changed many times over. It is probably usually impractical to distinguish the building from the people. My preference would be to move all church buildings articles and all congregations articles into a single churches tree. Churches in foo could be parented both to "buildings and structures in foo" and also to a people-related one, perhaps "organisations in foo". As long as inclusion does not raise a POV-issue, there is no harm in categories being a little fuzzy in their scope, and that is what I would advocate. I think the conclusion of this argument is this Keep and alter church buildings and church congregation trees to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd understand that to be a reasonable evaluation of the outcome, Peterkingiron. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These articles are about buildings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2015 (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. I note that there are many sibling categories within Category:Books by award that could do with a speedy nomination likewise. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Caldecott Medal winning works to Category:Caldecott Medal-winning works

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The hyphenization seems more correct, and it is in line with how we already have the similar category Category:Newbery Medal-winning works. KConWiki (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proper use of hyphen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per WP:C2A, typographic and spelling fixes. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- Is this a major enough award for the exception in WP:OC#AWARD to apply? If not, listify and delete: lists do the job much better than categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The award is the most prestigious in the US for a young children's book and only 1 book a year gets it so they immediately become a best seller. (I'm less sure the multiple honorable mentions each year need to be grouped under Category:Caldecott Honor-winning works or that we should place author under it with Category:Caldecott Medal winners though.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We should probably only categorize the books that win the award. The nature of this award is that it is not always clear if the author or illustrator is the primary winner when they are not the same person. It is defining for the books, but not enough so for the people to be defining. I also do not think the non-winners are a defining group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:IP addresses used for vandalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DENY. TL22 (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The deletion proposal misrepresents DENY by failing to recognise the use this category has for the administration of vandals. In my opinion its main usefulness is in helping to tag vandals listed at WP:AIV. This doesn't require a category, and can be performed more objectively by a bot. There is no recognition or notoriety to DENY; this category should be deleted because it is not useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this category was actually useful, it would make sense to keep it. However, the IP's block log is a better way of getting this information in a reliable manner (there's nothing to preent an IP user from categorizing a different IP's talk page); however, since it isn't - it should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see the potential for attacks by other users here. Gparyani (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2015 (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. MER-C 12:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Only editors (not readers) should be looking for stubs and for editors that a stub category is large shouldn't be a problem because a smaller group of stubs can be selected using category interesection. For example Category:UK MP for England stubs currently contains over 1000 pages. An editor looking for stubs that they can expand (question: is that something that editors actually do?) might only be interested in politicians from a particular party and/or politicians active in a particular century. Category intersection (example query[1]) provides a way to do that without the overhead involved in maintaining an intricate structure of stub categories (in parallel to the structure of article categories) - and avoids having to make a choice between diffusing the large stub category by party, by century or both. Category intersection isn't perfect - it's done by off-wiki tools that are occasionally unavailable, but should work well for this.

One way to make the use of category intersection easier is shown at Category:Whig (British political party) MPs - clicking on the "Stubs only" link brings up a list of Whig MP stubs. Note: There are also talk page (wikiproject-based) categories for stub articles, but they may use a different definition of a stub. DexDor ^(talk) 12:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The size of any given stub category isn't the category system's concern. Editors, as a rule, do not choose stub articles to expand on the basis of "this is a large stub category, so I should whittle it down even though I really know nothing about the topic" — what governs whether somebody contributes to expanding a stub or not is personal familiarity with the subject area and its array of sourcing options. So the size of the stub category isn't a helpful or useful or collaboration-based criterion to single out as a thing in its own right, because that's not the basis on which people make their editing choices. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination is based on the premise that readers will encounter this category. That should not happen; it's a maintenance category, and as such it should be tagged as a ((Hidden category)).

It is not intended as a category to assist editors in choosing pages to edit; it is intended to assist WikiProject Stub sorting in maintaining stub types, which it likes to limit to 400 entries. The project should have been notified, and I will do so now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is not "based on the premise that readers will encounter this category". DexDor ^(talk) 07:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DexDor, whether or not that's the basis of the nom, please could you respond to the [point that this is a maintenance category?

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Project_goals #3 is "Aim to keep categories at moderate sizes". If you disagree with that goal (in place for at least 7 years), the way to change it is by a discussion with the WikiProject, not by using CFD to remove one of the tools which the project uses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. strikes me as an eminently useful category to assist with the fine-tuning of stub categories. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "fine-tuning of stub categories" necessary ("The hierarchy of topical stub-tags has grown to massive size and complexity") ? DexDor ^(talk) 07:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with a core purpose of WP:STUBSORT, what makes you think that CFD is the place to discuss your concerns? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We're frequently considering ways of reducing the size of sub categories, and discuss the best way of refining the existing stub cats; the proposals for March 2015 provide plenty of examples of how they are chosen. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is useful for editors as a maintenance category, and should not effect readers in any way. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a maintenance category, which caegoizes pages by issues which they have; a stub category being too big is clearly such an issue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do actually look for stubs in overpopulated categories to work on.Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm one of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting and I constantly use this category to focus on categories that need reorganizing. Without this category, other members, like me, wouldn't know which stub categories needs work on. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2015 (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. The equivalent category only seems to be useful on Commons, for historical maps. – Fayenatic London 15:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerge Category:Historical Armenia to Category:History of Armenia

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the two categories seem to have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The contents are all redirects to sections in one page, Ani. – Fayenatic London 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Churches of Ani

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it all refers to only one article which is about the former city of Ani. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Categories lacking a description (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Thousands of categories don't have a description and in most cases that isn't really a problem as the category name and its parent categories are sufficient to define the scope of the category. If clarification of the category's scope is needed then relevant places to ask would be the category's talk page and the relevant wikiproject etc. It's very unlikely that an editor with knowledge of the relevant subject area would come across it in this maintenance category. Of the two categories currently in this category one has been there for over 2 years and the other was placed there by its creator(!). DexDor ^(talk) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as there is apparently no active use of this category. It would be okay though if at some point of time it would be recreated and started to become actively used. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While category descriptions are certainly helpful if they're present, there has never been any policy requirement that they must be present on all categories — so their absence is not a maintenance problem as such. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:History of Armenia. – Fayenatic London 15:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose rename Category:Armenian history to Category:History of the Armenian people

Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the scope of the category. The current name is ambiguous because you might think that it is about the history of Armenia as a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - not because it is ambiguous, but because it is a useless duplicate. The boundaries of Armenia and of where Armenians have resided have varied over time. Categories are sometimes better when they are allowed to be slightly fuzzy in their scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection against merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of this yesterday's discussion.

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Chile
• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Czechoslovakia
• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Italy
• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Switzerland
• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Uruguay

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to upmerge because I've made sure that all articles are in a "type of expedition" category (in the Expeditions tree) and also are in a "year in country" category (in the History of country tree). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- miniscule categories are useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Monaco to Category:History of Monaco.

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to upmerge because the one article is also in Category:Arctic expeditions in the Expeditions tree and also are in Category:1890s in Monaco in the History of Monaco tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- miniscule categories are useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Turkey

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to upmerge because the one article is also in Category:Expeditions from Germany in the Expeditions tree and in Category:Ottoman Empire in World War I in the Turkish history tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- miniscule categories are useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2015 (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.