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The result of the discussion was: keep (withdrawn by nominator). Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 10:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose subcategorizing/nesting:

• Category:Animal births by year as a subcategory of Category:Births by year and Category:Environment by year
• Category:Animal deaths by year as a subcategory of Category:Deaths by year and Category:Environment by year

and the same for all subcategories (no need to tag for this type of nomination)

Nominator's rationale: Clearly, animal births and deaths are births resp. deaths as well. Not nesting (animal) births and deaths categories, contributes to unnecessarily polluting the individual year's categories with a growing number of flat subcategories, see for example Category:2014. Of course, there's more to do but this would be a start.
We're human-centered and will always be, so keeping humans in the parent category, while subdividing for animals, should be no problem. The only problem is Category:People by time that shouldn't include animals. So instead we might possibly prefer creating a container that holds all of Category:Births by year, Category:Animal births by year and Category:Establishments by year and another one containing Category:Deaths by year, Category:Animal deaths by year and Category:Disestablishments by year. Somebody a good idea how that container could be named? --PanchoS (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator on 1 July. DexDor ^(talk) 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (for the moment). I'm not sure that the number of subcats of Category:2014 etc is a problem (and if it is then it would be better to find a way to move Category:2014 in theatre etc into a lower level category), the nomination isn't clear (e.g. "are births resp. deaths as well."), and the proposed change may complicate existing techniques/systems used for BLP administration (afaics that's that main purpose of the human births/deaths categories).

Looking at the wider picture, I'm not sure that categorizing animals by their year of birth/death is good categorization; such categories are not needed for BLP purposes and are not very useful for navigation (many/most such categories contain just a single article - usually about a racehorse). IMO it would be better to categorize animals by the century than by the exact year of birth/death - e.g. Category:Individual dogs could usefully be subcategorized by century. However, any changes in that direction are outside the scope of this CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 06:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks DexDor, I can see your point regarding my original proposal. As I clearly consider a large number of flat categories detrimental for navigation and clarity, ee should therefore turn more towards evaluating alternative solutions. Now, do you (or anybody else) have any grave objection to consolidating Category:Animal births by year, Category:Births by year, Category:Establishments by year and Category:Introductions by year into a container category Category:Beginnings by year; and Category:Animal deaths by year, Category:Deaths by year and Category:Disestablishments by year into a container category Category:Endings by year? --PanchoS (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a grave objection, but I don't think Category:Beginnings by year is a good way to go - it doesn't do much to reduce the number of subcats of each year category whilst adding a new (and potentially confusing) set of categories. A better way to reduce the number of subcats in of each year category might be to copy the structure at Category:Main topic classifications etc - i.e. have Category:2014 in nature, Category:2014 in society etc (or Category:Society in 2014 etc). And (as I suggested above) perhaps the animal births/deaths by year categories should be deleted. DexDor ^(talk) 06:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly another way of grouping the individual categories, and a sensible one, though they're not mutually exclusive. At least for the 19th and earlier centuries, animal birth/death categories should IMO be either collapsed by decade, or altogether transformed to Category:Animals by decade, but that's outside this nomination's scope. For later years, there seems to be sufficient content. --PanchoS (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment most of the notable animals whose birth years are known are captive and not part of the "environment" as many would understand that term, so that part of the upmerge is probably not appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Environment ≠ wildlife. Also, apart from a few remaining protected areas, how much of the earth is really untouched by human culture? --PanchoS (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing. DexDor brought up some convincing arguments against the original proposal, and possible alternatives need WP:CfD involvement even less than the original proposal does. --PanchoS (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I know it was withdrawn but I want to register this as a horrible idea. Category:1991 births currently has no subcats and we want to keep it that way. This would open the door at least in some peoples minds to creating lots of birth subcats which would create a mess. It is bad enough that we have some people in 5 or more type/place of death categories, we at least have kept it to pretty much 1 birth category per article, although some articles are incorrectly categorized in say Category:People from Provo, Utah, when the article states that they only lived there until they were 6 months old and then were raised in Fresno, California, and we have guidelines that state that the place of birth is generally not defining. This proposal would lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The racehorse births by year categories are bizarre. So if we had an article on a horse that was not a race horse (which I am sure we have, although the year of birth might not be known), it would be in the general animal birth by year categories and thus more closely categorized with dogs born that year than with racehorses born that year, this just seems odd. I would make a proposal to upmerge these categories but don't feel like going to the work of tagging hundreds of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category about such horses is Category:Individual horses. It and its subcategories list individual horses separated by various criteria. The subcategory Category:Individual warhorses includes famous warhorses such as Old Baldy (the horse of George Meade), Black Bob (the horse of Rollo Gillespie), Blueskin (the horse of George Washington), Bucephalus (the horse of Alexander the Great), etc. We even have an article on Incitatus, the only horse supposedly considered a candidate for the position of Roman consul. In some cases we have exact dates of birth and death, in others vague estimates or the article lacks dates altogether. We know for example that Bucephalus died in 326 BC, because it died shortly following the Battle of the Hydaspes which took place that year. Also the city Alexandria Bucephalous which Alexander built and named after his horse was established that year. On the other hand, no ancient source gives an exact date for the birth of Bucephalus, and we only have vague estimates for it. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into century categories up to 1900 and decade categories thereafter, with a further merge to year by country (if existing) or decade by country (if not); and to year by continent (where there is not lower year category. I do not think it useful to combine human and animal births. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 3 July 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 as opinion seems split here. One side argues following the category tree of Category:Dutch people (along with the Musician precedent) while the other side argues following Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision along with concerns that the "Dutch" demonym is ambiguous. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands to Category:Dutch sportspeople by province

Nominator's rationale: Source category is a sub of Category:Dutch sportspeople (i.e. inconsistent with its parent and other categories); Target name would be in proper English gidonb (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current naming is more clear, and more in line with the use of terms in the Netherlands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't we work here by the convention of the English language Wikipedia? gidonb (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Suggest Category:Sportspeople in the Netherlands by province as it avoids demonyns and also goes from general to specific to more specific from left to right. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to kept aligned with many sibling categories in Category:Sportspeople by country subdivision and aligned, one level higher, with categories in Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed your link Category:Sportspeople by country subdivision. 7 out 16 categories follow the format that I suggest. If we change this name, already half!!! Barely an indicator that we should do differently. How about aligning with Category:Dutch people and Category:Dutch sportspeople, the most relevant categories above this category? gidonb (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I guess you haven't checked Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision? Because that makes the score much more convincing. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category is internally consistent but strange if you look at its subcategory Category:Politicians by first-level administrative country subdivision
• Comment Under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June_21#Category:Dutch musicians by province a recent precedent can be found to close this discussion as Category:Dutch sportspeople by province, after a similar of Category:Dutch musicians by province received the upperhand. This keep was suggested by Laurel Lodged (here suggests a different solution?) and Oculi, both disregarding the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As Rob13 writes in the conclusion: The argument that Category:Dutch musicians by province is a sub-category of Category:Dutch musicians, which has a stronger claim on the naming conventions than unrelated "by province in the Netherlands" categories, is particularly convincing and well-founded in typical CfD outcomes. Likewise, the defining people category for Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands is Category:Dutch people. It is also a sub of Category:Dutch sportspeople. gidonb (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm not an expert on Dutch sensibilities. Can one be Of the Netherlands but not be Dutch? For example are people from Aruba Aruban or Dutch? If not,then I'd be fine with this alternative also. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – this is primarily a subcat scheme for Category:Dutch sportspeople and should certainly be renamed per nom. (The alternative is to rename Category:Dutch people first.) Oculi (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I failed to give credit to some other Wikipedians: Sionk, Brigade Piron, Carlossuarez46, Peterkingiron, and Cambalachero. All deserve praise for promoting vertical consistency. There are many more who work hard to keep the navigation sensible. gidonb (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (not sure whether I have voted already) -- Support -- Where there is an acceptable demonym we should it. The Musicians provides a good precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 17 July 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 as opinion seems split here. One side argues following the category tree of Category:Dutch people (along with the Musician precedent) while the other side argues following Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision along with concerns that the "Dutch" demonym is ambiguous. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People by province in the Netherlands to Category:Dutch people by province

Nominator's rationale: Source name is a subcategory of Category:Dutch people (i.e. inconsistent with its parent and other categories); Target name would be in proper English. gidonb (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current name is more clear, and the target makes Dutch slightly more ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? gidonb (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dutch people by province" could include people who are Dutch by natiomality grouped by the province they are connected with in some way that is outside the Netherlands. This is not within the intended scope of the category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Suggest Category:People in the Netherlands by province as it avoids demonyns and also goes from general to specific to more specific from left to right. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many countries with categories of the type "People by province in Foo". That they are also Dutch people is not enough reason for a rename, because they are not just Dutch, they actually live in the Netherlands. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Debresser, this is somewhat of a peculiar claim as some of these sportspeople actually live and work abroad from the Netherlands. What defines these folks is that they are Dutch, *not* that they live in the Netherlands! gidonb (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A category called "People by province in the Netherlands" should not contain people who live abroad. So either keep and purge or rename. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being Dutch is in these cases a defining characteristic. If they cannot be purged, do I understand that you would prefer to rename as suggested? gidonb (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Debresser, see sibling categories in the tree of Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please also find the reaction under Debresser... gidonb (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June_21#Category:Dutch musicians by province a recent precedent can be found to close this discussion as Category:Dutch people by province, after a similar of Category:Dutch musicians by province received the upperhand. This keep was suggested by Laurel Lodged (here suggests a different solution?) and Oculi, both disregarding the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As Rob13 writes in the conclusion: The argument that Category:Dutch musicians by province is a sub-category of Category:Dutch musicians, which has a stronger claim on the naming conventions than unrelated "by province in the Netherlands" categories, is particularly convincing and well-founded in typical CfD outcomes. Likewise, the defining people category for Category:People by province in the Netherlands is Category:Dutch people, of which it is a sub. gidonb (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with the outcome of the previous discussion. The fact that this musicians category hasn't been parented, and can't be parented, to any "by country" category should have been considered as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there was a discussion and everyone opposed to moving away from Category:Dutch musicians by province for the reasons as listed in the discussion. The closing person stated correctly that the "The argument that Category:Dutch musicians by province is a sub-category of Category:Dutch musicians, which has a stronger claim on the naming conventions than unrelated "by province in the Netherlands" categories, is particularly convincing and well-founded in typical CfD outcomes." So there are several parent categories but one of them is defining! gidonb (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – this is primarily a subcat scheme for Category:Dutch people and should certainly be renamed per nom. (The alternative is to rename Category:Dutch people first.) Oculi (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I failed to give credit to some other Wikipedians: Sionk, Brigade Piron, Carlossuarez46, Peterkingiron, and Cambalachero. All deserve praise for promoting vertical consistency. There are many more who work hard to keep the navigation sensible. gidonb (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (not sure whether I have voted already) -- Support -- Where there is an acceptable demonym we should it. The Musicians provides a good precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 17 July 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: selective merge of only the main Film Writers Association and Jalees Sherwani, as there has been strong arguments that this isn't a defining characteristic of regular members but no argument that either of those aren't defined by Category:Film Writers Association. I'll follow-up with a nomination of Category:Film Writers Association to decide if that's worth keeping or merging somewhere. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:FWA Members to Category:Film Writers Association

Nominator's rationale: There are a number of organizations that use the initials FWA. Instead of renaming to something less ambiguous, propose upmerging to Category:Film Writers Association, given that this category is the only thing in the parent. Even the mainspace Film Writers Association is in this cat, not the parent.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 21:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as the present name is totally unclear. Ketil Trout, good catch! gidonb (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also partial purge and upmerge only the article of the former president, Jalees Sherwani. In addition the defining article, Film Writers Association, is missing at the parent category. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Support I'm not convinced either category is defining but, 1 arguably defining category is better than the status quo. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The people may be notable as Indian film writers, but FWA is a trade union and they are unlikely to be notable for Trades Union membership. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 7 July 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 Category:1781 establishments in New Spain. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1781 establishments in Alta California to Category:1781 establishments in California

Nominator's rationale: The other categories within Category:18th-century establishments in California for each years are establishments in California. However I may wonder if it's better to reverse the others instead to Alta California. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:1781 establishments in New Spain, this is too fine of sub-categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert and NorthBySouthBaranof: Was this region part of New Spain in 1781? According to Alta California, it formally started in 1804 based on the split of the single providence. According to New_Spain#California, I see that there were missions and forts established going back to 1769 as the Alta California article starts but did the Spanish have complete ownership of the area? Now, I know that this establishment category is for Pueblo de Los Ángeles which is clearly related to the Spanish and thus to New Spain but the century and decade categories within Category:18th century in California use California in contrast to the years being Alta California (which I'm aware is another issue entirely). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • California was a sub-unit of New Spain. "Complete ownership" is not really an issue worth getting into. There were places clearly beyond Spanish control, but to call them in any meaningful way "California" would be a misnomer and anachronistic. Plus we do not have articles about establishments tied to specific years being done by indigeous tribes in the Sierras. Later on the Russians do establish a fort in what is now Northern California, Fort Ross, but this was not in their view in California, it was within Russian North America, the fact that the present boundaries make it now within California should not cause us to classify it that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per jpl is fine with me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per JPL. California (as we know it today) is an anachronism before the gold rush. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 3 July 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 London to England and keep the other two. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting:

• Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:European Parliament constituencies in Wales
• Category:European Parliament constituencies in London

Nominator's rationale: Of the three contemporary constituencies (one for Scotland; one for Wales; one for London), the former two should be selectively upmerged to Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom, while the London constituency is already listed in Category:European Parliament constituencies in England. PanchoS (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Scotland and Wales; neutral on London. This nomination offers only a description of what the nominator wants to happen. The rationale is supposed to explain why the nom wants this action, but the nom doesn't even try to justify it.
  Substantively, there is a very simple reason for keeping the Scottish and Welsh categories: they maintain the consistent structure of sub-catting UK politics by the UK's constituent countries. Deleting the categories damages navigation by breaking the consistency of that category tree. Additiinally, the nom's bizarre proposal to delete rather than merge to all parents would also for example remove Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland from Category:Constituencies in Scotland, which is highly disruptive. It would also leave Category:Former European Parliament constituencies in Scotland‎ without a parallel current constits category, as if there was no current constituency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "bizarre" and "highly disruptive" is a bit over the top, ain't it? However, BrownHairedGirl has a point that the two former ones should probably be kept, so I'm fine with that compromise. --PanchoS (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep England (not CfDd), Scotland, and Wales; Upmerge London to England (the article is already included) and Former London to Former England. This scheme would be consistent with other geographies set aside Northern Ireland under the UK root. Since Northern Ireland can have a category for UK division consistency but does not necessitate a category -- I wouldn't create it and I wouldn't support removing it, had it been created. Like Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not strictly necessary as regular categories because of the limited population potential. However, these cats are strictly necessary as the containers for their former constituencies, hence should be kept as is. gidonb (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge London; keep the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:59, 3 July 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: purge as per nom. Based on this discussion, the scope of the category is "articles or redirects on specific American product or service brands". Company articles are specifically to be removed. I encourage follow-up nominations to decide on this for the rest of the Category:Brands tree after the purge is complete so we have a better idea of the end result. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American brands to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mish-mash of products bearing a trademark, companies, and articles about brands. Sure, there are articles about products with brands (Hot Wheels), but the article is mostly about the product not the brand. The title doesn't reflect that: is "Estée Lauder Companies" an "American brand?" I would venture that "Estée Lauder" is, but Estée Lauder Companies is an American company, for which we have a whole different tree. Ditto entries like Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, then we have things like Francis Ford Coppola Presents, which is Coppola's company, presumably his name is what brands his work, not that mouthful. Hershey's is a brand, The Hershey Company is not used by any consumer to refer to chocolate. The Hershey Company kisses, anyone? Also, what is an "American" brand - is it a brand for a company based in the US, or a trademark of tradename of significance to the American consumer? What if a the company operates in the US but is owned by a foreign company, like Chrysler or Budweiser? Or the products bearing the "brand" are made elsewhere, like Hot Wheels. Since this category isn't what it claims to be, it's name should be changed to reflect what it is, perhaps Category:Trademarks and tradenames of companies based in the United States. Alternately, the category could be purged to include only articles on brands, not companies or people or products. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge per nom. I concur with the nominator that these brands-categories should only contain articles on particular brands, or branded product families, which would include both registered trademarks and non-registered ones if still notable. If a brand is not notable enough to have its own article apart from the company or a particular product, then a – possibly categorized – redirect should be enough. If someone considers a brand to be widely relevant to the American every-day culture, then please write a well-sourced article. --PanchoS (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge to remove articles from this category that are about companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with no decision. This is a general Category:Brands problem, not a US problem. Please take this important discussion to the brands root! gidonb (talk) 12:34, 10 July 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) 05:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Expulsions of Jews to Category:Deportations of Jews

Nominator's rationale: What I am proposing is renaming of articles (and this single category) that use the word expulsion to using the word deportation. The reason for this is that the word expulsion is not defined anywhere in our project. Note that Expulsion is a disambig, which mentions Deportation as the related article. Its lead reads: "Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country", and it is applicable in the historical context ("Deportation is an ancient practice, for example: Khosrau I, Sassanid King of Persia, deported 292,000 citizens, slaves, and conquered people to the new city of Ctesiphon in 542 C.E.["). PS. Just in case I wouldn't be clear, this proposal is limited to this single category. Any article renaming will be done on relevant article pages through RM. See also related discussion I just started here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the basis of using the most neutral and general term. If anyone identifies a better term then use that one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to make the actual meaning clearer. But why is Category:Immigration to Israel a subcategory here? I don't think all people who immigrate to Israel were deported there. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The definition in the lead of Deportation is at least shaky, given that the first book referenced deals with "mass expulsions", and the second one specifies "Deportation is the removal of an alien out of the country." (italics are mine), whereas throughout history, most expelled Jews weren't aliens. Other established definitions make a difference between mere expulsions (forcing someone to leave the country) vs. deportation (carrying someone out of the country). While etymologically imprecise, "deportation" is also used for legal expulsion of aliens, the mere expulsion or banishment of non-aliens isn't covered by that term. It is therefore not clearer nor the "most neutral and general term", but in fact is a narrower term that excludes much of the current content and would therefore invalidate the category. The fact that we currently don't have an article on mass expulsion or collective expulsion, and that expulsion isn't even a WP:CONCEPTDAB, may be deplorable, but insofar remains irrelevant. --PanchoS (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as there are four expulsion articles under this category and zero deportation articles. gidonb (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 1. "Expulsion" is driving people out of where they live, while "deportation" means in addition also to bring them to another area. These are not the same, so the rename is incorrect. 2. The reason for the nomination "the word expulsion is not defined anywhere in our project" is not a sufficient reason for a rename, and is not much of a reason for anything IMHO. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have thought about whether expulsion and deportation are the same and I think that Debresser captures the essence of the difference. And the difference, to my mind, has meaning: expulsion is "we don't want you here", deportation is "we want you there." It's also commonly said expelled from Fooland, while deported (often, back) to Fooland. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debresser and Carlossuarez46. Neutrality^talk 19:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Not one of the article titles uses the word "deportation". In my book, deportation refers to the removal of illegal aliens, but in most cases, the Jews were legally settled until an anti-Semitic edict was enacted. Edward I of England expelled the Jews because he could not pay back his loans to them (an item missing from the category. A cognate case is Idi Amin expelling the Ugandan Asians. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 3 July 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 to Category:Television stations in Thailand (non-admin closure). Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television channels in Thailand to Category:Television stations in Thailand

Nominator's rationale: Categories with identical scope. (Note that the proposed category is actually the older, more established category, but most categories in the Category:Television stations by country tree use stations.) Paul_012 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move per nom. What actually happened here is that this was originally at "stations", as it should be per our naming conventions for this tree, and a new user arbitrarily moved it to "channels" earlier this year. That most certainly should not have been done without consensus, however — while nationality-specific categories are allowed to vary from a parent naming convention if there's a compelling reason for the variance, that reason has to be agreed upon by consensus and cannot just be an arbitrary action by one editor. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, missed that—my apologies. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:17, 4 July 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. The requested move was closed with the article title staying put, so the category can be renamed to match the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Palestine Emergency to Category:Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine

Nominator's rationale: The article is called Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. Palestine Emergency redirects there, but the category and article name should match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom The current name is vague and could mean any type of wars and disasters taking place at any point in the Palestine region. Dimadick (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection, provided the subcat can remain at Category:British military personnel of the Palestine Emergency. I opposed this when it was nominated on the Speedy page, along with its sub-cat to go to Category:British military personnel of the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. The main article Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine begins "Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine involved paramilitary actions carried out by Jewish underground groups against the British forces and officials in Mandatory Palestine between 1939 and 1948." So there was a period of Jewish insurgency, but not a clear-cut event that might be called "the Jewish insurgency". Meanwhile, the term "Palestine Emergency" is used elsewhere for this period, in United Kingdom casualties of war (dates stated as 1945–48) and List of friendly fire incidents#Palestine Emergency (1944-47). Perhaps the most specific term would follow the section Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine#The Jewish Resistance Movement and after, 1945–47; but "British military personnel of the Jewish Resistance Movement" or "British military personnel of the Jewish insurgency" might imply involvement in or support for the Movement/insurgency. In case anyone thinks the two categories should be named consistently with each other, an alternative for both would be to add dates at the end of the existing names. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: Should we have the subcategory at all? It largely consists of British military personnel who happened to be in Palestine in the years of the Jewish insurgency, as part of their military career path, without having had any explicit role with respect to the Jewish insurgency. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a defined conflict after WW2 which appears sufficiently prominently in their biographies, so IMHO it is sufficiently WP:defining to be kept. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - Palestine Emergency is a British military term to refer to the period, but Jewish insurgency is far more widely understood. TrickyH (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- no clear reason why this category shouldn't follow its article. gidonb (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Zionist revolt was preceded by 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The British were trying to put out an explosive powder keg and trying (unsuccessfully) to govern a very fractious polity. The present article name displays a Zionist POV and should be renamed back to the British POV Palestine Emergency, unless someone can offer a NPOV name that covers the Arab POV too. The article should be on the history of period, not on the history of the Zionist rising, which could however have its own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: if the intended and actual scope of the category covered that earlier period, then we might rename the subcat "British military personnel of Mandatory Palestine", and the parent perhaps as "Military operations in Mandatory Palestine"; but I have checked the first half of the articles in the subcat, and they all only relate to the period 1945–48, as I believe do the articles in the parent, so there is no need to broaden the scope as you have suggested. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I am inclined to withdraw my objection, but I am still inclined to wonder whether we could not find something a bit more NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical oppose - the referred article Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine is currently debated whether to rename it to another title, with one of the options being Palestine Emergency.GreyShark (dibra) 11:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Greyshark09: I presume that you are referring to this section of the talk page? I have no objection to holding up a category rename when a formal RM is in the process of determining what name to use for the article, but this discussion doesn't seem very active and appears unlikely to reach any consensus to move the article absent a formal RM being started. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy The main article is Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine and the category name should blindly follow. No objection to a speedy rename if an RM discussion moves the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I saw no great reason why the category name should be different from the article. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match actual article name. Plus, the target name is way more clear, the current name is way more ambiguous as to time and perpetrators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - the article Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine is now proposed to be renamed to Palestine Emergency.GreyShark (dibra) 16:05, 5 September 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 (and I'll take care of the upmerge as well.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category contains just the following: the eponymous page, lots of redirects, 2 MFD discussion (MFDs are not normally categorized like this, one is linked from the eponymous page and the other is only tangentially related to Esperanza), 3 signpost articles (which I've listed at the bottom of the eponymous page). Wikipedia:Esperanza should be upmerged to Category:Inactive Wikipedian organizations. If not deleted this category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia Esperanza. DexDor ^(talk) 06:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose but would discuss further. This is a case of a well-developed but now inactive project which also has pages suppressed as redirects. If the pages were not suppressed then definitely the category would be valid. The argument here might be since the pages are hidden by being made redirects, then categories should also be removed. I see no reason for this. This categorization system will only be seen by people exploring the archival categorization. If the pages are to be kept at all, rather than deleted, then it seems useful to categorize them. Removing the categories removes value from this content which is being kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluerasberry (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia:Esperanza page provides a summary of the history of Esperanza (including links to the MFD discussions) and that's all that current Wikipedia editors need if (now increasingly unlikely) they come across a reference to Esperanza (e.g. at Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people). If anybody is doing serious (e.g. academic) research into that part of Wikipedia history they'll probably need access to deleted material and a more accurate way to find old Esperanza pages - some of which (e.g. Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs) aren't (currently) in this category. DexDor ^(talk) 05:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to "Wikipedia Esperanza" and this category also should be categorized as an inactive Wikimedia organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Rename if Kept This should begin with either WikiProject or Wikipedia. No strong opinion on whether to delete this inactive group. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge category; Rename article to Wikipedia Esperanza to reflect that this is a (defunct) part of WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move the main project page to parent Category:Inactive Wikipedian organizations, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recategorize to Category:Inactive Wikipedian organizations as per nom. This is extremely unusual categorization — unlike anything else on the project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looking at this page it appears to be an article masquerading as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 27 August 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) 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hemiptera by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We have been moving away from categorizing species by countries (recent CFDs) as it causes some articles to be in large numbers of categories (for Jersey, Andorra etc). Thus, this category is unnecessary - the two subcategories are in Category:Hemiptera of Oceania. DexDor ^(talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, since this category tree is no longer useful or actively populated. Dimadick (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No longer useful, and the two subcategories are sufficiently categorized. --PanchoS (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Plant and animal species are not constrained by the political borders of countries, and accordingly consensus has long been against categorizing them by individual country. I'll grant that the two countries here are potentially special cases — one is considered a full-on continent in its own right, and the other is geographically isolated enough that it has a higher than normal volume of uniquely endemic species. But they don't need this as a parent category, if other siblings for other countries are deprecated — Category:Hemiptera of Oceania is the only parent required here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only for the relevant species by country categories. gidonb (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- New Zealand has a unique range of biota; Australia and Madagascar likewise. Conversely, the presence of land bridges means that for Europe and Asia even a continental split does not really work. The category scheme needs to reflect species distributions, not political boundaries. I am not a biologist and cannot suggest a robust category scheme for this. Country (as such) is clearly not the right solution, but here the two items represent isolated populations, so that the sub-cats should survive. For the moment, they need to be re-parented in by "by location" parent, but I am hoping that some WP project can sort this out generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Category:Hemiptera by country would not delete the subcats - and the subcats would still be in Category:Hemiptera by location. So can you clarify what merging you think is needed. DexDor ^(talk) 06:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Hemiptera by country per nom, Keep subcategories. As an entomologist and participant in WikiProject Insects, I have reservations about how useful these by-continent or by-country categories are as the vast majority of articles are not categorized at all. However, keeping it at the continent level (with major islands like Madegascar and New Zealand retained due to their specialized biota), should simplify Wikipedia's categorization issues. Should the tens of thousands of insect articles ever be categorized by place, more subcategories would be needed, but this is unlikely to happen in the near future due to the lack of editors and scientific data. M. A. Broussard (talk) 03:18, 6 July 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) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP Vespidae has been rolled into WP Insects/Hymenoptera. WP Vespidae's categories are no longer required. M. A. Broussard (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories are recommended to be deleted:

• Category:WikiProject Vespidae
• Category:WikiProject Vespidae articles
• Category:Unknown-importance Vespidae articles
• Category:Top-importance Vespidae articles
• Category:NA-importance Vespidae articles
• Category:Mid-importance Vespidae articles
• Category:Low-importance Vespidae articles
• Category:High-importance Vespidae articles
• Category:A-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:B-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:C-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:FA-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:FL-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:GA-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:List-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:NA-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:Start-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:Stub-Class Vespidae articles
• Category:Unassessed Vespidae articles

• Delete per nom (this appears to have been created as part of a college course in 2014). Note: Many of the categories listed above were not CFD-tagged - I've CSD-tagged many of them. DexDor ^(talk) 06:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have speedy deleted many of these based on the nomination by DexDor, as they were empty and not going to be populated. The remainder could be nominated with C1 also in the future. But in any case I support deleting the lot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this WikiProject no longer exists. And by the way, the Project can not have been that active. The main article on the Vespidae family contains only 3 paragraphs of text, and is missing a lot of information on taxonomy, geographic distribution, and phylogeny. Dimadick (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all — inactive project. gidonb (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--several categories seem to have been missed in the initial deletion round. M. A. Broussard (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 categories that are currently bluelinks above should be deleted when this CFD closes (assuming it closes as delete). There's also Category:Vespidae articles by importance and Category:Vespidae articles by quality - if they are not deleted by whoever closes this discussion then they can be CSD#G6ed. DexDor ^(talk) 05:34, 6 July 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: dual upmerge. Both sides made reasonable arguments, but the arguments for upmerging were more convincing to discussion participants. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Whips (horse) to Category:Horse whips

Nominator's rationale: There is no article name we are matching to here, so I suggest a more natural phrasing for this category. Alternatively, it could be upmerged to Category:Whips and Category:Horse tack and equipment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WeakSupport rename though I don't quite see what is not neutral about the other... there are enough articles that I'd prefer not to upmerge. Montanabw^(talk) 07:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: I did not write that it was not neutral. I wrote that the proposed name is more natural, meaning natural language. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Based on the current name, it could be about a horse called "Whips". Dimadick (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although the sparse articles are not very specific to horses. However there's plenty room for more specific articles, so I don't care too much. WP:NATURALDIS is an improvement here. --PanchoS (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as (optionally) suggestested by Good Ol’factory because of the combination (and only the combination!) of the following: 1. the lack of a root article; 2. the fact that all three whips are not unique to horses; 3. the fact that there are only three articles in the cat and it is unclear if there is more population potential. If at closing time the only viable options are keeping "as is" or renaming: I do prefer "horse whips" over "whips (horse)". gidonb (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Gidonb. Actually, this is better. --PanchoS (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual Upmerge My arbitrary cutoff under WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles, and this has 3. No objection to recreating if/when the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: There are dozens of 3-article categories, where shall this end? And actually, there is no reason an article has to be "unique to horses" to be in a category, there can be multiple categories in which an article fits. I can add two more articles to this now, will that settle the matter? Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Category:Whips. There is just not enough content. One of the articles is about a whip used from a horse on cattle; another is also used on dogs. If kept, certainly rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not opposed to a rename, I am opposed to an upmerge; whips are used in many different ways on different animals (there should be a Category:Bullwhips), and there is no reason that this topic cannot be non-diffused where equipment might be used on more than one animal (the romal is, in reality, used frequently on horses (sad to say), really more often than its historic use on cattle; go to any horse show where they have the appropriate classes and look out behind the barns). To upmerge to the the horse tack and equipment category just means that there will be several loose articles there and the category will eventually be recreated. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it eventually be re-created? Having "loose" articles in a category is not something that necessarily mandates subcategorization. Indeed, this discussion could act as a "precedent" of sort that such a subcategory should in fact not be re-created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Good Olfactory your reasoning here puzzles me. These are tools used on horses, and should be separated out from the broader category of horse tack. Not all whips are used on horses, so distinguishing the designs that are is useful. The argument that they might be used for other purposes too, as noted below, is a useless argument. I am going to @Beyond My Ken: who has some knowledge of these articles and may have insights as to their categorization. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • • These are tools used on horses, and should be separated out from the broader category of horse tack. Here you go from an "is" statement to a "should" statement, with nothing that I can see the logically connects the two. I guess we just disagree on how categories ought to be used. Regarding your notification of other users, you do need to be careful about how you go about it, per Wikipedia:Canvassing. The context in which you have notified user:Beyond My Ken is not exactly neutral. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Whips since these whips are not exclusively used on horses. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite the policy that says an object cannot be in multiple diffused categories, {[u|Marcocapelle))? This is a nonsense reason. Shall we not diffuse a fedora into category:hats and category:men's clothing because women might also sometimes wear one? Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's "nonsense"—rather, it depends on one's preferred approach to categorization. User:Marcocapelle's approach is different than yours, but both are rational possibilities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 7 July 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.