< August 23	August 25 >

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 09:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Kopitar family

Nominator's rationale: -- WP:SMALLCAT. There are only three notable members of this Slovenian family, each known for their contributions to hockey. Anze Kopitar has two very young children who won't be notable anytime soon. Is a category really needed here? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the articles can easily link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 09:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election to Category:2016 Labour Party leadership election (UK)

Nominator's rationale: WP:PARENDIS. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this would create an inconsistency with the parent Category:Labour Party (UK) leadership elections. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category (and other similar ones) should be moved as well, but one has to start somewhere. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I see a whole bunch of related articles were moved recently to follow the proposed format. I don't know if there was consensus for this. I would be against renaming the category (and the articles) since the title could be misleading, suggesting we are discussing a worldwide organisation with a UK branch rather than a UK organisation that is independent of its international counterparts. This is Paul (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started moving some of these articles because I thought the old title was misleading. Unnaturally putting (UK) in the middle suggests that the name of the party is Labour Party (UK), which it is not. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It suggests that the disambiguator refers to the Labour Party rather than to the election. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - article is Labour Party (UK), category is Category:Labour Party (UK). WP:PARENDIS does not seem relevant. The articles (moved recently like this) should be moved back. Oculi (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Category names#General conventions says that normal policy on article titles should apply. And policy on parenthetical disambiguation is to put it at the end. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Categories should follow the name of the main article, unless there is good reason not to. Rathfelder (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for Category:2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election is 2016 Labour Party leadership election (UK). Matching the category to the article is the reason for this requested move. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons given in my comments above. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current title makes it clear that it is a UK Labour Party leadership election. Proposed title suggests that there was a supranational election and this is for the UK element of the vote. Number 5 7 12:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The present name is quite clear enough and consistent with parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 09:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2015 Labour Party (UK) leadership election to Category:2015 Labour Party leadership election (UK)

Nominator's rationale: WP:PARENDIS. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, see nomination above. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; per my above comments. This is Paul (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as above. Oculi (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Opera hat (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Number 5 7 13:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Food studies journals to Category:Food science journals

Nominator's rationale: The term 'Food Science' would be better/more accurate for this category than 'Food Studies', also to be consistent with the main article.Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I copied the above from the category talk page, as the nominator had not listed the proposal on a CFD page. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Food science is the more common term. Rathfelder (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 09:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Laureates of the Prince Claus Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, the people in this category are not specifically notable for this award, in the articles the receipt of the award is mentioned merely in passing. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I checked a sample of articles in the category and any mention of this award was in a list of awards received (e.g. at Julia Isídrez) or at the end of the text. DexDor^(talk) 09:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-defining award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAWARD applies. No need to listify as there is a good list in the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Manassas Park, Virginia. MER-C 09:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in Manassas Park, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category and its subcategory contains only 1 article. TM 13:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Manassas Park, Virginia per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I added one article and it is part of an established series of categories in Category:Buildings and structures in Virginia by city that WP:SMALLCAT also provides for. Hmains (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every populated place needs its own buildings subcategory, that really depends on the amount of content. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conflicted about this. A double upmerge would usually be appropriate for this sort of SMALLCAT, but because Virginia has independent cities, that's not possible. I think I'd prefer merging Category:Houses in Manassas Park, Virginia into the nominated category, instead. (Note: I also added a redirect to the category.) - Eureka Lott 17:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Manassas Park, Virginia per WP:SMALLCAT, also merge in Category:Houses in Manassas Park, Virginia. There are only two articles and a redirect in the whole tree. However there probably ought also to be a merge to a wider category, such as Category:Buildings and structures in Virginia

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to general cat for the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 09:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Harmon prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, some articles like Benjamin Griffith Brawley do not even mention the award at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The reasons I created this cat are because 1) it is of significant historical value, and 2) many sources that mention this award, and thus (at least formerly; I cleaned them years ago) some Wikipedia articles, report winners incorrectly. [That is, they say "Person A" won it, when he or she actually did not.] One such error was in a book by Cornel West IIRC. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these keep arguments is policy-based. Historical value and sourcing apply to every award in wp, but it does not imply we should create categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about category policy. The category is useful. It helps prevent misinformation. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (NONDEF etc). Having a category tag on articles that don't even mention the characteristic (and hence it's unreferenced) is neither useful nor a way to prevent misinformation. If the category creator wishes to put information (e.g. person X won prize Y) into a more database (machine-readable) system there's WikiData. DexDor^(talk) 19:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it would be trivially easy to ADD a mention of the award, but I am on a train typing on a cellphone. If it is not mentioned in the article, it really should be. The award is historically significant. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong way to think about categorization. An article might contain, for example, 100 facts about the subject and maybe there's another 100 facts that could be added, but that doesn't mean the article should be in 100-200 categories. See WP:NONDEFINING. DexDor^(talk) 09:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research the topic. For some of these unsung Black American artists, winning the Harmon prize is the only thing potentially rescuing them from undeserved anonymity and oblivion. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in this category are of substantial length, definitely not just covering the prize. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to be defining. Would have voted to listify but there's already a list. Zerach (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is sufficient. Most award categories just lead to cat clutter, and this is a clear example of such. Not everything someone did and every award they received need to be categorized by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Star Cruises to Category:Genting Hong Kong. MER-C 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Genting Hong Kong to Category:Holding companies of Hong Kong‎

Nominator's rationale: Only one eponymous article Rathfelder (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Or should we merge Category:Star Cruises into it, and remove Category:Holding companies of Hong Kong‎ as a parent category? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 09:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Aldehydic acids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category only has one member, which is already separately categorized under Category:Benzoic acids and Category:Benzaldehydes. Also, the category has no main article, and there is no page with the name Aldehydic acid. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep this category is for carboxylic acids that are also aldehydes. There are several well known substances that have not yet been added in yet. And I am sure there are many lesser known materials. It would also be determined by the intersection of two other categories; but that is not a reason for deleting. The lack of a parent article is just because no one has written or yet, not because of absence of notability. But the main reason for the categorization is to break up otherwise huge categories. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment creating a 1-article category does not really help in reducing the size of otherwise huge categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well categories always have to start with one entry. There is also the category:keto acids with comparable scope. ~~I am not in a position to find and add more entries though~~. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added several entries, so that category is no longer small. There are about 10 entries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 09:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism to Category:Societies that have practiced cannibalism

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to collect together exclusively non-European, mostly indigenous societies that have practiced cannibalism (or allegedly practiced cannibalism) at some point in their history. I think the term "tribal" carries a loaded, pejorative, stigmatizing connotation in this context and thus the word should be removed. Personally, I think the category should be deleted altogether and turned into an article or list, but that suggestion was voted down in 2008, so that's a debate for another time. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the redundancy of 'tribal'. Perhaps more precisely: Category:Peoples that have practiced cannibalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (listify if necessary) as non-defining (e.g. for Mohave people) and not part of a tribes-by-practices categorization scheme. Note: the 2008 discussion was closed as no consensus. DexDor^(talk) 10:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per WP:NONDEF is another possibility indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One issue that will come up is how to distinguish those who practiced ritual eating of cetain organs of powerful enemies with those who practiced full scale eating of other people. Add to this theories that some of the cannibalism in some south Pacific societies happened as a result of over population, and the fact that tribal practices change over time without the tribes themselves always vanishing, this is just not a good category. It might work as a nuanced list, but not a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 16:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Scientific racism

Nominator's rationale: This is a biased, pejorative term that serves no purpose in this encyclopedia except Marxist-Lysenkoist far-left POV pushing. Science is and has always been a detached and objective pursuit and does not and has never included any component of racial hatred that would ratify its putative status as "racism". I find particularly perturbing the category's characterization as "pseudoscience" (always a term to use with caution) and "obsolete theories". Clearly, the category is populated with enough "scientific racists" who believe in "scientific racism" as to render their enterprise as something other than "obsolete". Delete. HRKent444 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I do not follow the rationale. Why would, for example, a book like Race, Evolution, and Behavior not belong in this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Because a book like that does not include any component of racial hatred that would justify its labeling as "racism". HRKent444 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can see, scientific racism as a whole does not require hatred either. On the contrary, it aims at providing (pseudo-)scientific arguments in support of racism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pseudoscience is a term to use with caution. Many of the scientists listed in the category employ the scientific method and empiricism and thus their enterprise cannot be categorized as "pseudoscience". Would you categorize FBI statistics on race and crime as "scientific racism"? Labeling something as scientific racism implies that there is some sort of value judgement inherent in the science, which there is not. HRKent444 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I put (pseudo) between brackets, because whether it is science or pseudo-science is beside the point. This is about treating race as an independent explanatory variable in science. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, category has a clear encyclopedic topic, that it is pejorative is immaterial. Category:Neo-Nazis is pejorative. Doesn't mean that neo-Nazis don't exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pejorative terms have no place in a project that purports to expound a neutral point of view. HRKent444 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, those contributions... we're likely dealing with a WP:SPA here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And although I usually AgF and often far longer than I should, looking at the OP's edits I don't think they are here for the good of the project. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear encyclopedic topic. And science has been used to justify nonsensical policies by various states, and has been far than a detached observer. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence? HRKent444 (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least purge. The Bell Curve is a problematic book in many ways, but to call it "scientific racism" is to engage in misinformed attacks on the book itself. This category should be used with extreme caution, and if that cannot be achieved it should be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of reliable, academic sources directly linking The Bell Curve to scientific racism as a simple defining trait. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The placement of Charles Murray, an Anglo-American with an Asian wife, in this category amounts to character assasination and is a clear sign this category is being abused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact this is an attack term used by the fraudulent, discredited and racial stratifying SPLC to attack others shows this is largely a way to discredit the work of others. This becomes even more pronounced when people in the late 20th and 21st century like Charles Murray who write things the are less racist than anyone wrote in 1854 are grouped with the most extreme racists of the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And how does Joseph Deniker fit in all of this? He was trying to classify race, but not propagate ideas of differential. He came up with 10 races in Europe alone for example. Considering how much modern academics invoke race at every turn, to use this as a pejorative attack on some people in such a selective way just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant topic of academic study and for many (no, not all) entries, it is well supportable by sources. As with any category, people and especially BLPs should be handled with caution, but that's not a justification for deletion. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proponents of pseudosciences want to whitewash the articles about their ideas all the time. We don't do that. See WP:LUNATICS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't delete categories because we don't like them for political reasons or because they imply bad things, it's a legitimate category for an encyclopedia and apparently misunderstood by some editors. Hop Gadling also has it right. I see that at least one editor, John Pack Lambert, is now busy removing it (and Category:White supremacy from White Gods despite it being in the lead) from articles, eg from Richard Lynn despite the fact that the article discusses scientific racism. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a legitimate category. (The inclusion of any particular item in it is of course potentially a matter of debate, but that's true for many legitimate categories.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with others that there may be cases where the category is misapplied, but the existence of "scientific racism" as a distinct scientific tradition is well-documented. The nominator's rationale seems to misunderstand the definition of the term scientific racism. Nblund^talk 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, purge biographies This category is similar in my opinion to Category:Misogyny, where the hatnote reads It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misogynist., with a link to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. (The other categories listed in that discussion should probably be winnowed again as well.) gnu 57 16:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 09:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Transgender women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This recently created category is redundant to Category:Transgender and transsexual women and/or Category:Trans women. (Please note that it contains only two items at present, both of which are also in the "transgender and transsexual women" category.) Cheers, gnu 57 01:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. We should strongly consider moving "Transgender and transsexual women" to just "transgender women", per the evolution in best-practices terminology for writing about trans issues that's taken place since the existing category was first created, but creating the desired term as a duplicate of the existing category, without actually doing anything about the existing category at all, is not the way to go about making that happen. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge somehow we do not need multiple categories for such people, unless there can be a clear distinction between people into different categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 24

Category: Kopitar family

Category:2016 Labour Party (UK) leadership election

Category:2015 Labour Party (UK) leadership election

Category:Food studies journals

Category:Laureates of the Prince Claus Award

Category:Buildings and structures in Manassas Park, Virginia

Category:Harmon prize winners

Category:JVP insurrections in film

Category:Genting Hong Kong

Category:Aldehydic acids

Category:2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election

Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism

Category:Scientific racism

Category:Transgender women