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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Only 7 possible entries, so better upmerged. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 7 possible entries are not so few, and there could be more if some new species are discovered or some other species are transferred to this genus.--Neux-Neux (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per -Neux-Neux. --Just N. (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, there are currently only two articles in this category. If and when 5 more articles are written the category can easily be reinstated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 4 now.--Neux-Neux (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2021 (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:Fictional feminists and women's rights activists. There is clear consensus to merge to Category:Fictional feminists and women's rights activists. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional feminist characters to Category:Fictional feminists

Nominator's rationale: This category currently has a major problem that its being added to tons of articles of female characters who simply happen to be considered strong and well liked by real life feminists, regardless of if the character actually identifies as a feminist in any way. ★Trekker (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Few if any members of the category are correctly defined by the fact that they are feminists. Better off using Category:Fictional activists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fictional feminists and women's rights activists - Criteria can be strengthened if necessary. It is defining for characters like Leslie Knope and Lisa Simpson for instance. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oinkers42 as duplicate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oinkers42 --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oinkers42. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 18:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oinkers42. --Just N. (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually merge, not all articles qualify for the activists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oinkers42. What is categorized is the beliefs of the characters, not their creators. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2021 (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 as nominated (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Seal Harbor, Maine to Category:Mount Desert Island

Nominator's rationale: Seal Harbor, Maine is a village in the small town of Mount Desert, Maine. It does not have an article of its own and redirects to the town itself. This category also only contains two articles and that number is unlikely to significantly increase in the near future.User:Namiba 15:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with no prejudice against re-creation if and when a category is viable. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominator leads astray. The Smallcat contains two persons. So the merging target should be : Category:People from Mount Desert Island‎. Please change the above proposal like that. --Just N. (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Justus Nussbaum: The nomiator didn't lead estray. Both of Category:Seal Harbor, Maine's entries are geography related articles NOT people articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt target merge' If the nomination is changed as I proposed above I would consent per SMALLCAT rules. --Just N. (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining ★Trekker (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Interesting factoid that they are included, but not defining of them. Captured by the list in the article for the game itself. -2pou (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2021 (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. I looked at a selection of members, and Smash was prominently mentioned, so the objection cannot be dismissed as having no weight. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep- Fully defining, the series is well known for it's crossover element and can be very defining to specific characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply for the below discussion on Category:SNK vs. Capcom fighters.

This one is a tad different, as I do think it is defining for the characters as well. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How?★Trekker (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit tough to describe, but characters like Jigglypuff, Ridley (Metroid), Shulk, and Wii Fit Trainer, among others, are just as important to Smash as they are to their home series. Also, Mr. Game & Watch is, in some ways, a Smash original character. This category is well maintained and just works as a category. There is no reason to delete it. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That claim seems very unconvincing, being important to a series does not mean the series is defining for the character.★Trekker (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say that those characters are important because of Smash just as much as in their home series. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, I'm quite irritated about these exuberances of fandom by Oinkers42. Any serious reasons beyond fan excitement arguments notable? --Just N. (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:SNK vs. Capcom fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining for all but one article, the list ★Trekker (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Defining, the series is well known for it's crossover element (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(Oinkers42): That does in no way whatsoever make it defining for the characters.★Trekker (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at the very least, can we make it a list? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(Oinkers42): You can do it if you want to.★Trekker (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, eventually listify. --Just N. (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Marvel vs. Capcom fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining ★Trekker (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Defining, the series is well known for it's crossover element. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply for the above discussion on Category:SNK vs. Capcom fighters.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, eventually listify. --Just N. (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The list already exists at Marvel vs. Capcom#Characters. -2pou (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video game guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Killer Instinct guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Dead or Alive (franchise) guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Injustice (franchise) guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Soulcalibur series guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Tekken guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Tony Hawk's (series) guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Mortal Kombat guest characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining ★Trekker (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete or merge back to each games characters category. I do not care which, but the guests are not consistently in the characters category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all but Tony Hawk - the guest characters are defining for their series and for the fighting game genre as a whole. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(Oinkers42): You don't seem to understand, character categories are supposed to be defining for the characters, not the games.★Trekker (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a defining characteristic.--65.93.193.134 (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Take, for example, Link from Zelda. The fact that he was in a Soul Calibur game is not defining to him at all; it is more like a trivia item. -2pou (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Scribunto modules with errors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I can't find where this is called and I'm not even sure this is used anymore. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The category is apparently populated by the software: see Special:TrackingCategories. This, that and the other (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, found MediaWiki:Scribunto-module-with-errors-category listed there. If this is deleted then that should be removed as well I guess. Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No longer populated after gerrit:160367 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:33, 19 November 2021 (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) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alpha Chi Sigma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Alpha Delta Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Alpha Xi Delta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Beta Upsilon Chi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Kappa Alpha Theta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Kappa Delta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Kappa Delta Rho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Lambda Phi Epsilon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Lambda Theta Phi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Omega Delta Phi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Phi Kappa Theta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Phi Mu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Phi Mu Delta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Phi Sigma Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Psi Omega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Sigma Delta Tau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Sigma Lambda Gamma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Sigma Phi Delta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Sigma Sigma Sigma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Sigma Tau Gamma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Upsilon Sigma Phi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Xi Psi Phi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Zeta Tau Alpha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant an eponymous category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The Fraternity & Sorority Project is quite active, building these and related pages. We currently have 1,800 pages on our watchlist, adding more all the time. Rather than delete these sporadically, only to recreate them in a few months, please leave them be. We have the space. As we fully address the many fraternities, sororities and societies we track, we first build a main article, then a secondary article listing chapters (usually, if 30 or more), then we create a separate page for a list of notable members, then pages for the Founders, if notable, then any historic register buildings owned, then noteworthy news events that have articles, and finally, cite society membership of notable members on the articles written about these persons. Each of these will get the fraternity's category tag. Ditching and then re-creating these categories just makes more unnecessary work. Jax MN (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The related lists are well-populated. The question is whether membership of each fraternity or sorority needs a category: I would have thought that if was a NN characteristic and not equivalent to alumni categories, but I am a poor judge as this is an American phenomenon. It should be sufficient to have a category for lists of chapters and another for lists of members. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- My sense is that the average reader approaches these categories as a member or researcher of a particular fraternal group, and NOT with the intent of looking at all the various lists of members of multiple societies. While a category of ALL chapter lists, or ALL notable members may be useful, I find the categories specific to each society to be a better nexus. I see your intent, but because we are actively working on these, and when built out, many of the societies could have ten associated pages, I would rather keep the cats in place. Jax MN (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose oftentimes categories with only two articles would be deleted. However, these do have a possibility of growth - a list of alumni is the first thing that comes to mind. They also make the category tree work better. That said, if the various lists-of-chapters articles are merged/deleted due to being a directory with only primary sourcing, I would change my mind: we can't have single-article eponymous categories. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:力 and Jax MN. --Just N. (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2021 (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.