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:PlatinumGames games. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:PlatinumGames Inc. games to Category:PlatinumGames

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article at PlatinumGames (PlatinumGames Inc. redirects there). Alternatively, "PlatinumGames games". The vast majority of other game company categories omit words like "Inc.", "Co.", and "LLC" (see Category:Video games by company). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:PlatinumGames games, mentioned as alternative name, would fit better in the games category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with "games games" for Marcocapelle's rationale czar 15:28, 7 May 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:North Korean film directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:North Korean filmmakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Two occupational categories, of which one is completely empty and the other contains only the empty first category. Normally I'd have speedied these C1, but the creator tagged both with the ((empty category)) template — however, that template is only intended for use on maintenance categories in projectspace, whose contents may be variable because such categorization is intended to be temporary, and is not permitted for use on end-user content categories to create an exemption from having to have actual content. Which means this is not a correct or valid use of the template, and thus does not render the categories keepable. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are actually articles to be filed in them. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sounds like a turning point of a career, in Korea. The CfD was fun-packed. The content, still intact. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 26 April 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Labor and demographic economics to Category:Economics by specialty

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only two child categories without room for expansion. (Note: the target category has been nominated to be renamed to Category:Subfields of economy). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The two terms are used sometimes together so it is not OR ([1]) but we should have a referenced parent article first, and the usage doesn't seem that common. Can't think of a good reason to keep it without a parent article present.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose: We have a coherent classification system generally used by the economics profession, and these arbitrary changes are just messing things up. JQ (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Wikipedia categories don't follow the JEL classification literally anyway. For example Category:Economies by country and Category:Economic crises do not appear in JEL, while on the other hand for example B21, B22 and B23 from JEL don't appear as separate WP categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your examples are outside the Category:Economics by specialty tree, which is what's based on JEL codes. If we have no articles specifically on B21, B22, and B23, then it makes sense not to break those out. ~ Rob^Talk 00:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is based on the JEL classification codes, which is the method of classification used across all economic journals. We can argue whether it's appropriate for the JEL codes to lump labor and demographic economics together, but we absolutely should not deviate from JEL in the Category:Economics by specialty. JEL is the industry-standard way to classify by speciality, so it's useful to our readers to keep it as-is. ~ Rob^Talk 00:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, on the use of JEL codes in WP categorization, see also this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree those are exceptions, given that they stem from a requirement of the JEL to classify everything in a subcategory. We do not have such a restriction. ~ Rob^Talk 06:26, 21 June 2016 (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:Philosophy by topic. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 00:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose re-categorizing both from Category:Branches of philosophy to Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy Propose renaming Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy to Category:Philosophy by topic

Nominator's rationale: To set it apart from Category:Philosophy of science.

• It's more than just history/tradition, if you compare articles Social philosophy and Philosophy of social science, you'll see that one is about philosophy of society, the other is about philosophy of social science. You're making an important point though, because it means that the name of Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy is not clear enough and might be nominated again for a better rename. Besides there are a number of subcats in Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy that don't belong there anyway, such as Category:Philosophy of life. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (pinging the nominator of the previous discussion) @Fgnievinski:: could you also share your thoughts on this nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rename Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy to Category:Philosophy by topic. fgnievinski (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That wouldn't solve the above confusion. Maybe better Category:Philosophy of science by discipline. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle:, @Fgnievinski:: After much thought I'd like to share my current ideas with you.
By the way, the only answer I got from the WikiProject:Philosophy so far is "Both seem to be sub-fields of philosophy". Not helpful.
I don't think a rename to Philosophy by subject area does much good. Let the name as is, but let's look at the subcats in detail.
Updated the rationale CN1 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC) CN1 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds like a reasonable proposal. Another update: meanwhile I found that Category:Philosophy of science already exists. Earlier on, I was under the impression that Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy was meant to contain (only) philosophy of science, but I was apparently wrong with it. In this case we may well rename Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy to Category:Philosophy by topic as suggested by Fgnievinski. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Why do we need to rename it again? I was under the impression that recategorizing would do. I quite like the name Interdisciplinary subfields .. as it goes well with Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of sociology. We could build a new branch in the wikipedia category structure, starting from Category:Academic_discipline_interactions, maybe calling it Category:Interdisciplinary subdisciplines by discipline. Would that not be great? I will build the system like this in my personal wikipedia. CN1 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you check the two categories Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy and its subcategory Category:Philosophy of science once more? You may have been as confused as I was initially. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: I get what you mean. So let's rename to Category:Philosophy by topic. CN1 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I noticed you changed the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2016 (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 to both Category:Films about twins and Category:Incest in film. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Twincest in film to Category:Incest in film

Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem likely to ever become a sizable category. Not significantly different from Category:Incest in film. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if merged, also upmerge to Category:Films about twins. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Double upmerge per nom/Marco. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: see recent precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 14#Subtypes of incest in fiction. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Double upmerge as above. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: See related nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28#Subtypes of incest in fiction and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 26#More subtypes of incest. Also, note that the editor who created all these categories has admitted to abuse of multiple accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hawaan12/Archive, and the one used here has now been blocked. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated. Editor in question went on a creation spree of very specific incest categories using uncommon terminology. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above.— TAnthony^Talk 14:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge overly specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete - just because somebody added this to the urban dictionary or tv tropes doesn't mean we should categorise by it. - jc37 09:48, 4 June 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Major League Baseball draft picks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Anaheim Angels draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:Boston Red Sox draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:Chicago Cubs draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:Cincinnati Reds draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:Los Angeles Dodgers draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:Miami Marlins draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:Milwaukee Brewers draft picks
• Propose deleting Category:Minnesota Twins draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:New York Yankees draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:San Francisco Giants draft picks‎
• Propose deleting Category:St. Louis Cardinals draft picks‎

Nominator's rationale: Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 30#Category:Seattle Mariners draft picks. – Fayenatic London 11:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All All of the sources used about individual baseball players prominently feature the details of the team that drafted that player. See [2], [3], [4] for examples. We use categories to track where a baseball player was born, where they played baseball in college and for every team they've played on in the minor leagues and major leagues; Surely we should be tracking the equally defining details of which team drafted them. Alansohn (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per previous discussion. The fact that Doug Fister was initially drafted by the San Francisco Giants is relevant but not defining. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all this is rehashing the previous discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 26 April 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Category may be recreated if more content becomes available. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Cliometrics is a derivation/variety of Econometrics, only more focused on history. The econometrics article needs expansion to include and describe it. Moreover, cliometrics is not part of the JEL classification codes system. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 19:22, 25 April 2016 (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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 00:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: except for the subcategory, it largely consists of companies and institutions that have their address on Piccadilly, London. I don't think Wikipedia should serve as an address book. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ridiculous deletion rationale, it connects together a bunch of notable buildings in one area of London and a world-renowned road. This is to be encouraged and helps navigation for editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: on the contrary, @Dr. Blofeld: you appear to be thinking of Category:Buildings and structures on Piccadilly (for which there are some precedents to keep, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 27#Category:Gdanska street in Bydgoszcz). – Fayenatic London 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes little difference to me, I think Category:Piccadilly is perfectly encyclopedic IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this is a valid category. Deb (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - to for instance Category:Piccadilly (London), to differentiate with other uses of the name Piccadilly like for instance Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester and others at Piccadilly (disambiguation). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think that Category:Buildings and structures on Piccadilly is sufficient. I don't think we should categorize organizations or institutions by their specific street address, since the building that such things are housed in can and do change with relative frequency. There's no overall scheme for this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The listed headquaters address of a large company is often non-defining to the company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television series by Nelvana to Category:Television series by Corus Entertainment

Nominator's rationale: Corus got its own TV category when it acquired Shaw Media, now its time to merge the smaller Nelvana category into the Corus category, since all of Corus's Animation is created by Nelvana. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is not time to merge the Nelvana category into the Corus one. As has been pointed out to you before, the WP:DEFINING characteristic of a television series, for the purposes of "television series by production company" categorization, is the name that was on the shingle at the time the show was in production. A corporate merger does not automatically force the wholesale reshuffling of shows out of the existing category for the company that actually produced them and into the category for their original production company's new parent company — a considerable number of the shows in the Nelvana category ended production anywhere up to 30 years before the Corus takeover, and thus are not, have never been and will never be Corus properties. It's acceptable for the Nelvana category to be filed as a subcategory of the Corus category — but a merger of the two is not appropriate, because many of the shows in the Nelvana category ended production before Corus bought Nelvana and thus do not belong in a Corus category. Oppose, and stop this tendentious bullcrap. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat, while I mostly agree with your reasoning, could you avoid using abusive language (bullcrap) about other editor's opinions? Per Wikipedia:Civility: "Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over." Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per our List of Nelvana programs, the Nelvana category includes (or should include) creations from the 1970s to 2010s. No reason to negate 40 years of history. Corus Entertainment is a relatively recent company, formed in 1999. It has acquired the rights to several old properties, but it is unclear if it has actually produced original television series. Its article does not mention any. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please merge: Corus does not produce animated shows under just its own brands anymore, just Nelvana, and Canadian Kids TV brands like YTV, Teletoon, and Treehouse, Corus acquired Shaw Media on April 1st, and got a lot of content, now i want to buy DHX Media, and Entertainment One, when Corus acquired Nelvana, it got the rights to a lot shows mede from to 1970s to 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Anymore" is not the salient characteristic of the category. "At the time the show was in production" is. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – CfDs by the same nominator with similar rationales are underway at the following locations, and may be relevant to this one:
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 22 § Category:Television series by DreamWorks Television
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 21 § Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 14 § Category:Television series by Lucasfilm
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 13 § Category:Television series by ABC Studios
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 13 § Category:Television series by Disney
    Ibadibam (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons stated by Bearcat. Trivialist (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lets get this Nelvana merger canceled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2016 (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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 00:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rivers and canals of Ljubljana to Category:Rivers of Ljubljana

Propose splitting Category:Rivers and canals of Saint Petersburg to Category:Rivers of Saint Petersburg and Category:Canals of Saint Petersburg

Rationale: We have no other categories which group these bodies of water together in such way. Note that in the case of Ljubljana, the category only contains rivers; I'm not opposed to creating a canal category there should there be enough to justify it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've created the category 'Rivers and canals of Ljubljana' instead of 'Rivers of Ljubljana' because it includes the canal Mali Graben (a natural canal, in any case not defined as a river but as a creek). There are at least two other canals in Ljubljana: the Gruber Canal [sl] and Curnovec [sl], both notable. However, as long as we don't have articles on all the three, I don't see a particular need to split the category. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Eleassar: The English Wikipedia article on Canal begins with "Canals and navigations are human-made channels for water ..." I think there might just be a translation issue here. Which river/creek/"canal" is the one at question here? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleassar:A creek is still a river; and for something, in English, to be called a "canal" requires that it be human-made. Based on this, Mali Graben is a river and not a canal. As I explicitly stated, I'm not opposed to subsequent creation of a canal category, should it be appropriate - only that, as of right now, the category only contains rivers. Note my Saint Petersburg nomination, included here, what I would have done if there had been an article about a canal in the Ljubljana category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you sure? (a source would be welcome - stream defines creeks/brooks as small to medium, and rivers as large) If so, then it is not a problem. Gruber Canal (a canal dug to drain the Ljubljana Marshes) is of particular interest/notability here. Or should it be 'Gruber Channel'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Eleassar may be thinking of "channel". There are channels on the surface of Mars, but not canals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Let's keep canals separate. If streams are an issue, then you could use 'Rivers and streams of Ljubljana', as per Category:Rivers and streams of Denmark...Jokulhlaup (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good to me. Then when the article 'Gruber Canal' is created, we put it in the category 'Canals of Ljubljana'. The category should be named 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana' then (to include Mali Graben). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Now that we're on the same page with the terminology. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not entirely clear in the later part of this discussion whether the target should be 'Rivers and streams of Ljubljana' or 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana'. The former name fits better in the category tree (see Denmark example as mentioned in the discussion, or the sibling US category). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rivers" fits in with the current naming scheme of Slovenia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:37, 6 June 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:European Car of the Year to Category:Stern (magazine)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OC in general

Right now this category only contains the namesake article and the magazine that gives it out (Stern) so I'm not really sure what the intent was when this was created in 2014. Whatever the history, this award seems undefining to the winning cars (Toyota Prius, Ford Focus, etc.) so I don't see any room for growth here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Ollieinc as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2016 (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/listify. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:British Columbia Country Music Association

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:BCCMA Award winners
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:BCCMA Award winning albums

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and, for the parent category only, WP:SMALLCAT

The British Columbia Country Music Association is very enthusiastic about supporting local artists. Rick Tippe has "has won more than 25 awards" from the BCCMA while, in 1993, Farmer's Daughter won "Entertainer of the Year, Group of the Year, as well as Song and Single of the Year". That's not surprising since the organization gives out 37 different awards every year (source) and have a limited pool of potential recipients to give them to. (While I don't think this is defining for a category, I listified the contents here in the article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Earflaps as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject British Columbia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (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.