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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedians from Argentina to Category:Argentine Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The Fooian Wikipedians categories of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality categorize ethnic/national origin, descent or belonging, so an editor "from Argentina" is "Argentine" by definition. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, it is obviously the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Latino/Hispanic Wikipedians to Category:Hispanic and Latino Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Hispanic and Latino—this may qualify for speedy renaming, but I wasn't quite sure. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for now but would support a group nomination of all ethnicity categories for deletion. Not sure how grouping users by their ethnicity would foster collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and I don't object to the existence of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hispanics and Latins in Europe to Category:Hispanic and Latino

Nominator's rationale: The scope of this single-article, Inception-esque category is rather muddled, in no small part because Spaniards are Hispanics. Category:Hispanic and Latino and Category:Latino diaspora are a mess, but instituting splits by continent is not going to help. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge somehow -- This is essentially a one-article category, which we do not need, the main article being a redirect to the other. The concept of bringing together almost everyone from central and south America as Hispanics and other Latino is an American one, with no place in a European context. I am not saying that immigration does not take place, but they are nit lumped together in the US manner. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose splitting Category:Masonic Lodges to Category:Masonic Lodges and Category:Masonic Lodge buildings on the National Register of Historic Places
• Propose renaming Category:Prince Hall Masonic Lodges to Category:Prince Hall Masonic Lodge buildings on the National Register of Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: Some of the articles in the category are for masonic lodges, that is, the local organizational level of the masons. Others are for buildings, all of which appear to be NRHP designations. These need to be split, as they are not the same thing. All of the Prince Hall examples are for buildings, so that subcat would be moved over entire to the building category tree. I am open to the notion of omitting reference to the NRHP in the building categorization. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note... we already have Category:Masonic buildings... would the requested new NRHP cat be duplicative? Or is the new NRHP cat intended as a sub-cat under the broader “Masonic buildings” cat? Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... maybe the solution is to move the lodge buildings into the existing masonic build categories. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me... although, looking through the articles in question, it seems that a lot of them are ALREADY in one of the “Masonic buildings” cats... A lot of these are also stubs, and there may be uncertainty as to what the article is really about (Lodge, building or both). Most Masonic Lodges are not that notable in themselves... so when in doubt, I would opt for removing the “Lodge” cat where the article is primarily about the building (note... in a few cases, the Lodge no longer even meets in the building, having moved or faded from existence) Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to distinguish between a lodge as an organization vs. lodge as a building. Note it is not wrong to say Smithtown Masonic Lodge meaning either, because that is often the actual common usage. This is like articles on churches, where we want one article on the church as an organization and its past and current buildings. We don't want to limit the articles or to push for splits of articles. It is not helpful for continuing development if editors go around and start removing "Masonic lodge" as category on articles that are currently mostly written about the building. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: I have pinged WikiProject Freemasonry about this discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Doncram. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2018 (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 7#Children's_picture_books. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Picture books by E. H. Shepard‎ to Category:British children's picture books and Category:Books illustrated by E. H. Shepard

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, all categories have 1-3 articles. This is not a matter of a large established tree, there are dozens of single articles in Category:Children's picture books. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – while I agree re WP:SMALLCAT, regarding the merging, most if not all of the picture books are already in the main cat or the subcats Category:American children's picture books/Category:British children's picture books. Would the bot deal with that? Also some of the "picture books" are not picture books at all and shouldn't go in the main cat – I have been trying to fix that problem. Robina Fox (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robina Fox: that is a very relevant comment. Which of these picture book categories do you think are not about picture books? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For example, I don't think Voyage of the Basset (Category:Picture books by James C. Christensen) or the Ology books (Category:Picture books by Douglas Carrel and others) are picture books, just lavishly illustrated‎. Category:Books illustrated by... would be better for these, but would also be small cats. I have already moved some non-picture books (e.g. First Love: A Gothic Tale) -- Robina Fox (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay so it's not entire categories that should be deleted (rather than merged). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Change – American and British authors/illustrators above should be upmerged to the American or British children's picture books categories instead. Robina Fox (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who edit exclusively with PC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is no value in a grouping of editors who edit exclusively using a personal computer (PC). This is just another variant of similar categories for Mac users, users of specific PC models and of Tablet PCs, and countless other categories of Wikipedians by computer hardware and by electronic device, all of which have been deleted in past discussions. This may have been created to mirror Category:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone; however, whereas that category arguably facilitates collaboration related to the mobile version of Wikipedia, non-mobile editing is by far the more common option and requires no special category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to WP:Wikipedians who edit with PC, under a section title "Wikipedians who edit exclusively with PC". Similarly, Category:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone should have been proposed to be listified, not deleted (but delete after listifying). These categories have varying degrees of plausible project purposes in supporting editors' needs, but lists, enjoying signed memberships, with easy potential for addition of notes, would be superior. As a user category, it should not be deleted without at least notifying all members. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How would a list support editors' needs, and to what "needs" are you referring? I may be missing something, but I really don't see what value a project page would add. A project page should serve some function, otherwise it should not exist or be deleted at WP:MFD. At a minimum, I don't think it's helpful to create a separate page for every type of device that can access the Internet (PC, Mac, tablet, smartphone, etc.). If there is some "need" to be met here, then it would be better to create a page surrounding that "need", whatever it may be. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Project space, and MfD, are far less restrictive than the category system. Dramatically different. Project space is good for any plausible project related idea, you don’t have to demonstrate the solution before making the page. Discussing, documenting, brainstorming solutions for PC editor needs, yeah maybe implausible, everything is built for PC, although increasingly less so. Smartphone, absolutely, so many things massively irritate me for one. “A separate page”? Sure, why so many pages? How about WP:Editor technical issues, divide it into sections. Project pages are so much easier than categorisation for these things. I definitely do not like the attitude at CfD that “this doesn’t fit the standard purpose of categories” mean “discard” as opposed to “fix by finding a better way”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC). There is *value* in documenting issues experienced by editors who edit exclusively using a personal computer (PC), but not by categorising. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  True, pages in project space, unlike categories, do not have to be "camera-ready" when they are created; I recognize that, and my point was only that they should have a plausible function before they are created. You're right that deletion discards information rather than repurposing it, but I think we need to first ask the question: Does this information have value? In my opinion (and I'm open to being proved wrong, as with the smartphone category), the information contained in a list of (two) editors who edit exclusively with a PC is not plausibly valuable. And I know we've had this discussion elsewhere, but I disagree that canvassing members of a user category does anything other than skew the discussion.

  Regarding multiple pages, they can be detrimental if they lead to unnecessarily fragmented discussion. While a venue to discuss editor's technical issues, or to document technical issues experienced by editors, is certainly a good idea and a valid "need", I think you've just described Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Does this information have any value? Yes, or rather the information that drove the editors to add themselves to this category, which obviously is not captured by the category. PC editors, maybe. Smartphone editors, yes. And I don’t think the plausibility of utility of the information is the sort of thing the category police are good at deciding, and there is no need for them to decided. The fact that contributing editors did this, category creation, is sufficient evidence that some editors think there is a purpose, and a WP:Page is the suitable receptacle.
  To my reading, you were not proved wrong about the smartphone category, instead, the discussion failed because the solution you offered was unsatisfactory. I have looked at a lot of these old categories that I call “potential resources”, and I think that *all of them* should be converted from categories to project pages, as the first action.
  You mention the notion of notifying members of these categories? That tells me you don’t quite see these things as I do. Notification is a big issue with protest categories, not with misguided attempts to contribute to editor matters. I would listing them, and tell them what I did, afterwards. Not once has someone told me that a category is better than a project page for documenting some issue.
  Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? God no! That’s a place for immediate problems and rapid solutions, not for documenting maybe-issues. Editing issues need their own page or the reports will definitely be lost. These individual pages probably should be categorised and linked from the pump. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and a list may not be needed either, taking in mind that the category is very poorly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – not a "group" of users in that only 2 are listed. – S. Rich (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rio de Janeiro to Category:Rio de Janeiro (city)

Nominator's rationale: This category was speedily renamed in August 2016 (incorrectly, in my view) to mirror the head article's title, Rio de Janeiro. While it is generally desirable for a topic category to mirror the title of its head article, there is an established exception in cases where the title is ambiguous—as in this case, where "Rio de Janeiro" could refer to either the city or the state— and could lead to miscategorization. It's acceptable for an article to be ambiguously named since hatnotes can provide the necessary disambiguation; however, a category can be added to articles without ever visiting the category (and seeing the category description), and so category names need to avoid ambiguity. (To avoid copying the thread from WP:CFD/S; here is a permalink to the discussion that took place there.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator to avoid ambiguity, and for consistency with its subcats which all use the "(city)" disambiguator. (And thanks to Black Falcon for following through on my attempted speedy rename to restore consistency). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator to avoid ambiguity, and for consistency with its subcats. Oculi (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless the article is renamed - if the title is unambiguous enough for the article, it's unambiguous enough for the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Od Mishehu: the nom has explained how ambiguity in category names raise different issues than apply in articles. It's a pity that you don't address those points.
  Also, why do you want this parent cat to be out of synch with its subcats? You chose to speedy this one alone, creating the disjuncture. Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why incorrect links to articles are any less bad than incorrect categorization - in fact, the latter is more likely to be fixed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Od Mishehu: Miscacategorisatiosn in ambiguous cats gets spotted only if the reader of the article knows the relevant category trees. That is rare.
  Category:Rio de Janeiro was a disambiguation category[1] until the dab page was deleted to make way for your speedy move. That way, HotCat prompts its users with a menu choice when they enter the ambiguous name, and any pages added manually to the categ make the cat automatically end up in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. What advantage to anyone is gained by your removal of that error checking?
  And it would be helpful to know why you want this parent cat to be out of synch with its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The location of the parent article is a mainspace assertion that the undisambiguated title is not ambiguous, or at least (WP:PT) that alternative ambiguities are of little importance. If this is not the case then the article should be disambiguated. The category system should not go its own way.
  Hatnotes are a poor justification for bad titling. Hatnotes are disruptive to the prime real estate at the top of the page, and more so to screen readers, both much much worse that a slightly longer sufficiently precise title. This case sound like a one of clear need for an RM discussion to disambiguate the city. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Rio de Janeiro (disambiguation) is a mainspace assertion that the title is ambiguous and will not do for a category. Oculi (talk)

  Oculi, I’m not sure what you are saying to me. The status quo is that Rio de Janeiro by default refers to the city. It’s a world famous city, older than the state named after it. The status quo is not unreasonable. To displace it as Primary Topic, the discussion belongs at Talk:Rio de Janeiro#Requested move. The last discussion I find is Talk:Rio_de_Janeiro_(state)#Rename_to_"Rio_de_Janeiro" 12 years ago, so a fresh RM would not be out of order. Whatever happens, categories should follow their parent articles; category issues can be present in RM discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The "location of the parent article" is a mainspace assertion that the city is the primary topic, not that the title is not ambiguous or that alternative ambiguities are of "little importance", especially when we are considering multiple geographic entities that are not coterminous. How can alternative ambiguous be unimportant when we are talking about two fully developed but distinct category trees: one for the city and another for the state (see Category:Rio de Janeiro (state)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This was bothering me, BF and BHG are making flawed arguments, and I was preparing a lengthy explanation until I changed my mind. I still think you are wrong, trying to distinguish "ambiguous" from "no primary topic", because it means that you are using a non-useful definition of ambiguous, and I wanted to sort out why. But I changed my mind because "follows the parent article" shouldn't/doesn't mean you can't add disambiguation. As long as Rio de Janeiro (city) means and redirects to Rio de Janeiro, I have no objection to renaming Category:Rio de Janeiro to Category:Rio de Janeiro (city). No reader may be hurt by this. No one who knows Rio de Janeiro will be confused by seeing Category:Rio de Janeiro (city). If they know it, they know it is a city. I'm still unimpressed to references to hatnotes, but making a category title more precise than a parent article is not a problem, especially if the only change is the addition of a parenthetical suffix. Changed to support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This is an unusual case. The city article is clearly correctly named, but people add categories without looking at it to check they have precisely the right target. The classic case is Birmingham, whose categories have to be at Birmingham, West Midlands to keep articles about Birmingham AL out of it. The category we are discussing should be retained as a dab-category, which will result in miscategorised items being put into their correct place. However there are other cases of a city and a larger province sharing a name: what to we do there? I think of Japanese praefectures for example. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Dublin, Category:Dublin, Category:Dublin (city) is an example. Oculi (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Categories should match parent article titles. Number 57 22:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Number 57: please can you explain what is the benefit of an ambiguous category title? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't an ambiguous category title IMO. Number 57 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Rio de Janeiro (disambiguation) disagrees. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Rio de Janeiro agrees. Number 57 23:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't. See the hatnote in Rio de Janeiro.
  The city has been selected as the primary topic of an ambiguous title, but that does not make it unambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It does, otherwise editors wouldn't have decided to have the article at a title that isn't disambiguated (basically see SmokeyJoe's comments above). Anyway, let's not continue to go round in circles and just respect each others' opinions on the matter because I'm not persuaded by your argument and you're clearly not persuaded by mine. Number 57 23:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The ambiguity of the bare term "Rio de Janeiro" is not a matter of opinion. It is a point of fact.
  I can respectfully disagree with those who prefer to use the bare title as the category name, but this denial that there is any ambiguity is simply counter-factual. Editors decided to have the article at a title that isn't disambiguated because they believe it to be to the most significant use of that term, per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. That choice does not obliterate the existence of other meanings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Number 57, your argument is based on the incorrect premise that ambiguous article titles always have to be disambiguated. They do not, since articles can (and do) include hatnotes to clarify any ambiguity. Editors' decision to have Rio de Janeiro be about the city, which is a decision I support, was not based on any notion that the title was not ambiguous; rather, it was based on the calculation that the city is the primary topic and any ambiguity can be adequately addressed via a hatnote. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, follow the main article name. I think more confusion is created by having the article and category have different names than is created by having a category name that is not 100% unambiguous. Categories can contain disambiguation headnotes as well. I think the chance of miscategorization is low. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how a category name more precise than the article causes any confusion.
    For readers, the disambiguated category title merely alerts them to the possibility that there other uses of the term. For editors, the disambiguated category causes WP:Hotcat to prompt if the ambiguous title is entered; OTOH pages added manually to the categ make the cat automatically end up in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories, so any errors can be monitored.
    Maybe I have missed something, but please can @Good Olfactory explain how this confusion arises? And what problems have been caused with other similar cases, such as Birmingham/Category:Birmingham, West Midlands and Dublin//Category:Dublin (city)? Both those categories have been disambiguated for over 7 years, so if there are problems then there surely must be evidence thereof. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can cause confusion because they are different though refer to the same thing. WP should have standard naming conventions applied when the same thing is being referred to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Good Olfactory: But what exactly is the nature of this "confusion"? Surely you aren't suggesting that a reader will look at the article Rio de Janeiro and be confused to find that it is Category:Rio de Janeiro (city)? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, this is one of the few exceptions in which deviating from the article name actually helps navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category names should be unambiguous, and "Rio de Janeiro" is ambiguous as both the city and the state have the same name. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per arguments of BHG, SJ etc. Perhaps also need to ensure that guidance on this issue is clear. DexDor ^(talk) 09:46, 25 February 2018 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:30th-century BC female rulers to Category:30th-century BC women rulers

Nominator's rationale: for consistency with their parent Category:Women rulers, and with other sub-categories of Category:Women in politics.

Category:Women in politics has 1373 subcats. 949 of those use "women", and only 139 use "female". (The rest are titles such as "First Ladies", "queens consort", or eponymous categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hmlarson (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I question the need for some of these 1 article categories, we maybe should merge up to the millenium level, or just have a general category and only sub-divide by century when we start getting lots of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2018 (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 both category and template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Medal of Honor stubs to Category:Medal of Honor recipient stubs

Nominator's rationale: The way this is currently worded indicates that it is for a Medal of Honor, which already limits the article count to one article (each country titles their similar medal with a different name -- only the US calls it the Medal of Honor). And as such, that single article is unavailable as a stub article -- since it is currently a fully fleshed out Good article (former featured article, even). How this category is treated is to identify stub-level articles of recipients of the Medal of Honor. In recognition of the de facto status of the category, I propose the indicated category name change. Also, I recommend that the template be renamed from ((Medal-of-honor-stub)) to ((Medal-of-honor-bio-stub)). Dawynn (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per actual usage of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 19:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Female Members of the European Parliament to Category:Women Members of the European Parliament
• Category:Female MEPs for Austria‎ to Category:Women MEPs for Austria‎

Nominator's rationale: 1) Per common usage, and 2) for consistency with other categories of women in politics.

1. common usage in reliable sources:
   • JSTOR:
     • 8 Female: "Female Members of the European Parliament": 2 + "Female MEPs": 6
     • 36 Women: "Women Members of the European Parliament": 4 + "Women MEPs": 32
2. consistency with other categories:
   • parent categories of Category:Female Members of the European Parliament are: Category:European women in politics, Category:Women legislators by country, Category:Women supernational legislators
   • Category:Women in politics has 1373 subcats. 949 of those use "women", and only 139 use "female". (The rest are titles such as "First Ladies", "queens consort", or eponymous categories)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hmlarson (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support women is the better formulation. We need to do the same for say Category:Female United States Senators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 'Female' is an adjective. 'Women' is a noun. This is as ungrammatical as Category:Men Members of the European Parliament. /harumph Furius (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Nominator's rationale: The category is empty, and is likely to always be empty, as the articles associated with it have all recently failed a WP:AfD, (see Defiant Championship, Defiant Hardcore Championship, Defiant Women's Championship, Defiant Internet Champion and Defiant Tag Team Championship) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Hardcore Championship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Women's Championship

• Comment -- We currently have an article on each of these events. If and only if these are all deleted, we should also delete the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: which articles are you referring to, apart from Defiant Wrestling and the above-mentioned redirects? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I had failed to spot that most of the articles were redirects to a single article, which ought to be in this category. One article and a load of redirects to it certainly do not make a viable category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Nominator's rationale: There is already an existing category, Category:Indian songs. MT Train^Discuss 12:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train^Discuss 12:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have taken the liberty of adding the colon before "Category:Indian songs". Without the colon it wasn't displaying the category name but instead was trying to put this Cfd page into the category. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There are some categories like that: Category:Bengali film songs, Category:Hindi film songs, Category:Japanese film songs, etc. Film songs may be categorised separately. Tijd-jp (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Songs originating in film can have their own subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2018 (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. Clear use of the subcategory structure of similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Railway stations located underground in Sweden to Category:Railway stations located underground
• Propose merging Category:Railway stations located underground in Denmark to Category:Railway stations located underground

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT - only a few other countries have such subcats, and the parent cat isn't oversized (it would have 192 articles with these included). Note that with the exception of Stockholm City Station, each of the stations in these categories is already included in the national railway station category tree other than in the listed categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- These categories are part of a series (which we allow). Sweden has 6 members which is above the usual minimum. It would be better to apply the effort to distributing the many articles in the parent to appropriate sub-cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To the best of my understanding, we use one of the following options, depending on the situation:

  1. No subcats - this would work for small categories, but not for this one.
  2. Subcats for countries with many entries - I believe 6 is too few on this level.
  3. Subcats for all countries with any - only for large categories which would otherwise be too big, or if nearly every country would get one by level 2.

  This specific category tree is on the second level stated above, and with its current population this is the correct level. Please also note that I made this nomination after splitting out 4 other subcats - France, Germany, Spain,and the UK; I believe that each of Australia, Brazil, Canada and Italy would also be a good split here; however, Denmark and Sweden are, in my opinion, too small. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see also this related issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Better to diffuse. I created and populated subcat for China, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Italy. Now <20 pages in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with the helpful improvement work from BrownHairedGirl. Much better than just trying to delete things Hmains (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Georgetown University Medical Center alumni to Category:Georgetown University School of Medicine alumni

Nominator's rationale: When I created the category, I didn’t realize i created it with the wrong title title. Someone has since created a category with the correct title. Postcard Cathy (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2018 (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: upmerge as nominated. The requested follow-up nomination of Category:Crosiers is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 25#Category:Crosiers. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Crosiers by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose upmerging Category:American Crosiers to Category:Crosiers and Category:American Roman Catholic priests
• Propose upmerging Category:Indonesian Crosiers to Category:Crosiers and Category:Indonesian Roman Catholic priests

Nominator's rationale: delete/merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Further cleanup after closure of this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• RenameMerge per nom and per WP:SMALLCAT. Category:Crosiers+subcats contains only 3 articles. This collection of 3 subcats for 2 articles just impedes navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: I guess you meant merge instead of rename? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: thanks, I did mean merge. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Category:Crosiers is in serious need of a rename, too. The key article is at Canons Regular of the Order of the Holy Cross; a crosier is something completely different. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most probably you are right, but that should be discussed in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- I agree with Grutness as to the inappropriate name of the target. Not being a Catholic, I am uncertain how significant a Catholic priest's order is: my guess is that this is a legitimate category, to be parented by Catholic priests by order. While a short name may do in other cases, crosier is ambiguous and cannot be kept. Can the Closing Admin please set up this follow up nom? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge A 3-article parent category does not need to be split in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Nottaway River drainage basin and Category:Broadback River drainage basin. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nottaway Hydrological System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Broadback Hydrological System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As with the prior Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Harricana Hydrological System, these are two more attempts by User:Veillg1 to overcategorize rivers and lakes by their watershed instead of their geographic location -- and once again, Veillg1 just left them as redlinks, forcing a more established user to create them in good faith from the WantedCategories queue. This is not a useful way to categorize water bodies, and it's not done anywhere else -- we categorize lakes and rivers by the state or province that they're located in and/or by county if the state or province needs diffusion, not by their waterflow relationships to each other. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the debate on the relevance of the two categories, let us put in perspective that in French, the two categories exist fortunately. The categorization of hydrographic slopes for large areas such as Northern Quebec is a good logic. They make it possible to locate the reader in these vast territories and to understand the main flows of water. Let us put in perspective that the municipality Eeyou Istchee James Bay has 297,332 square kilometers; which is 9.7 times the size of Belgium. Admittedly, the categorization by region is useful, but not sufficient to be well located in countries with large spaces. In English, these categories are as useful as in other languages. Hopefully, in English, every major watershed will have a category. Veillg1 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by creator. There is a lot of categorisation underway of the geography of northern Quebec and Ontario, most of it in redlinked categories, and some of it in apparently duplicated or overlapping (mostly-redlinked) categories. I have been trying to clean it up a bit, but I have little knowledge of the area.<bt>Thanks to Bearcat for raising this. It seems to me that it would be helpful for a wikiproject to discuss the category structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Veillg1 is notorious for this. He constantly applies redlinked categories to articles, often on non-defining criteria like their "hydrological system" that aren't reflective of how we actually categorize rivers or lakes, regularly using non-intuitive sortkeys like numbering rivers instead of sorting them alphabetically, and (as with the James Bay/Baie-James duplication I listed above) not always even taking proper care to ensure that he's using the same spelling from one article to another — so cleaning up one category doesn't mean you don't still have to check his edit history to see if there's still another redlinked category for the exact same thing to clean up because he spelled or capitalized it differently somewhere else. He's been advised not to add redlinked categories before, but he doesn't stop. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Bearcat. Messy.

Is it time for a topic ban for Veillg1 ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, but I'd be very surprised if he actually abided by it. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is long history with this user's tenuous grasp of practices on the English wikipedia (and of the English language in general). I've mostly crossed paths with creating or making monstrously bad edits to disambiguation pages (for recent examples, see Nemenjiche or Iserhoff). older ≠ wiser 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of how they manage to confuse themselves, I've just moved articles into the Nottaway cat from Category:Nottaway Hydrologic System, Category:Nottaway Hydrological system, Category:Nottaway hydrological system and Category:Nottaway River Hydrological System. Le Deluge (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: I have pinged WikiProject Geography of Canada (diff) and WikiProject Quebec (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I doubt that the hydrological system is a defining characteristic of a river. I also think that some sort of test should be passed before editors can create categories. Oculi (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: Why? I'd have thought that hydrological system is probably the most important defining characteristic of a river. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename according to normal Canadian usage (which I do not know). It is appropriate to categorise rivers according to the main river of which they are tributaries. As an Englishman, I would refer to Category:Nottaway catchment. If that is not appropriate, it should be Category:Nottaway hydrological system. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if kept, based on the article texts I would say that Category:Tributaries of the Nottaway River would be the most appropriate name. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep both and rename to 'Tributaries of the foo River' which seems to be the standard naming convention here for such categories, of which there are many Hmains (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep both and rename to 'Tributaries of the foo River' per Hmains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Comment Tributaries works in somewhere like the UK where it's uncommon to have major lakes along the course of a river, but my impression is that many of the Canadian systems flow through lakes. There's an extensive hierarchy at Category:Drainage basins by country (although note that the US and Canada daughters are named as watersheds), some aren't well filled but Category:Drainage basins of the United Kingdom‎ shows what's possible. I'd suggest this is a matter for WP:WikiProject Rivers to figure out. All I'd say is that "hydrological system" is just a horrible phrase, presumably it's a translation from the French for "catchment".Le Deluge (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both and rename to Category:Nottaway River drainage basin and Category:Broadback River drainage basin, and place them in the broader category Category:Watersheds of Canada (the name of that category is a separate topic). I prefer "drainage basin" to "watershed" or "catchment" because it has less potential for ambiguity internationally (with the word "drainage" necessary to distinguish from geological concepts). I think the "Tributaries of" format suggested above is unsuitable in this instance, given the numerous lakes in both categories. Even if these categories did contain only rivers, in common usage "Tributaries of the Nottaway River" strongly implies that all of these are rivers that flow directly into the Nottaway River (as opposed to some intervening river or lake), which is not the case. Thanks --TimK MSI (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other notes: Nottaway River and Broadback River should be added to the respective categories and noted in the category descriptions, and whatever sorting instruction is being applied that is causing some articles to sort into a "0-9" group should be removed. I'm happy to assist with this if the categories are kept. --TimK MSI (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Nottaway River drainage basin and Category:Broadback River drainage basin are fair alternatives instead of tributaries. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2018 (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.