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) 07:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hypnotherapists to Category:Hypnotists

Nominator's rationale: No distinction between the two categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, to distinguish the therapeutic practitioners of Hypnotherapy from other practitioners hypnosis, many of whom are entertainers (see stage hypnosis). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Surprising nom as the former is in the 'health professionals' tree and the latter in the 'entertainers' tree, generally considered to be quite distinct. Oculi (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a large difference between therapists and stage performers. Dimadick (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If you look through the articles you will find that there is much less distinction than you might expect. Very few are only entertainers. The vast majority claim to be performing some sort of therapeutic activity, even if they are also entertainers. There also a few who use hypnotism as a sort of anesthetic who dont fit happily into either category. Rathfelder (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These terms are not equivalent. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The terms are not equivalent, true, but if you look at the articles you will see that there is very little to distinguish the articles about the practitioners. I am not suggesting that the main categories should be merged, only the categories about the people who do it. Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 10:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category for alumni of a voice acting education program, whose article contains no reliable sourcing to suggest that it's notable at all. People are not defined by being alumni of non-notable schools. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I suspect that you do not read Japanese. I certainly do not. We need to be wary of declaring things NN, because there are no English sources. I do not know whether it is a notable school or not. Are you sure there are no RS in Japanese? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep stuff just because better sources might exist than are present in the article. To consider it notable, someone who can read Japanese would have to show the evidence that any actual reliable sources do exist, rather than it necessarily being my job to prove that they don't — nothing would ever be deletable at all if "well, maybe some real sources might actually exist somewhere" were all it took to make it keep an article keepable, and the article's existed for seven years without having a single source added to it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Japanese Wikipedia has an article about Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy but (based on Google translate) it appears to be unsourced and the main content of the article is a list of alumni, like here in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete following deletion of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I checked the first 10 articles in the categ (Yuri Amano, Isshin Chiba, Daisuke Hirakawa, Takako Honda, Masayo Hosono, Yuka Imai, Makoto Ishii, Shizuka Ishikawa, Miki Itō, Yukiko Iwai) and only one (Miki Itō) mentions Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy anywhere other than in the categ list. Per WP:BLP, the other 9 should be removed from the categ even if kept. Looks like promotional spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: split (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:British & Irish greyhound racing trainers to Category:British greyhound racing trainers and Category:Irish greyhound racing trainers

Nominator's rationale: Two different countries lumped together. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support split - good rationale. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Special circumstances Greyhound trainers in the UK and Ireland are closely linked in regards to the fact that they compete for the same prizes in each country. In addition many Irish trainers are licensed by the GBGB (the UK governing body) and when competing for an Irish prize are regarded as representing the UK despite being of Irish nationality. I hope that explains why it would be preferential for the category to remain as one. Another example would be John McGee Sr. (8 times UK champion) but an Irishman who raced under both codes.Racingmanager (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Racingmanager: that's a good case for a hatnote in each cate linking to the other one. It doesn't require a shared category which breaks our conventions for categorising people by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Split - I suggest creating the UK and Ireland categories as subcats of this one, move the articles down and then upmerge this category. DexDor ^(talk) 11:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 31 December 2017 (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) 06:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Post-grunge authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unclear that this is a notable sub-genre. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment If this is a notable genre, then the article on post-grunge lit provides a list of members. Seeing as how it seems to be almost entirely based on one PhD thesis, however, I have my doubts. In any case deletion or retention of this category would be predicated on deletion or retention of the main article. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually delete. The only source in the article on post-grunge lit which mentions "post-grunge" is the thesis, so this is not a notable genre. But care should be taken to ensure that all articles are properly categorised, so a simple deletion-by-bot would be inadequate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose deleting Category:1369 disestablishments in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
:Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT outside existing scheme. —swpb^{T go beyond} 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn; nominated in error. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The post holder is in categories about the Royal Navy and Royal Navy Appointments (military), established in 1360 and de-established in 1369 in England are (events by year) why select this for nomination for deletion and not the other 150 other ones similar to this here Category:Disestablishments in England by year?.--Navops47 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, 1) it seems arbitrary to nominate this one for deletion when there are ones for every year and 2) I disagree that it falls under WP:NARROWCAT and 3) it serves a useful purpose.--Discott (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2017 (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) 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Purpose of category unclear; the two members may be results of bad design, but are clearly not "design failures" themselves, however that might be defined. —swpb^{T go beyond} 18:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is obvious from the nature of the articles in question that these articles are about a type of design failure or, in other words "bad design". If the nominator would prefer the term "bad design" then I would be supportive of the category rename however I would then have to point out that "design failure" is both more explanatory whilst also being less emotive. The category needs expanding, but then all new categories do. The purpose of this catagory is self evident, to centralise examples of design failure or "bad design". It is an issue of interest to designers just as examples of good design are.--Discott (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category is supposed to be what you're describing, then it fails squarely under WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: what counts as a "failure"? In civil engineering, a design failure isn't a clamshell package that pisses you off, it's a building that collapses and kills people. The problem is not word choice, it's that the category's scope is inherently subjective. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Discott is the creator of this category. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that is a more interesting question. However again I would point out that the answer to whether it passes the 'bad' level is pretty self evident in the two (so far) examples given in the category (Computer rage and wrap rage) as they are design elements that are intended to help instead causing rage. I do agree that it would be helped if the articles in question explicitly stated (with a reliable ref) that this is a type of design failure. Generally issues relating to design are poorly covered (as not many designers seem to be editors) so these sorts of details are rarely covered within articles. This was a first attempt by me to try and help rectify that.--Discott (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Solving the category membership problem is not a matter of sourcing any more than wording. That's what it means to say that the subjectivity is inherent. Even if you could use sources in categories (you can't), those sources would still just be offering an opinion on which side of an arbitrary line something falls on. You keep saying the criteria for membership are "self evident", but they are absolutely not. Every design is a compromise; every design falls short in some area. This is just a bad idea for a category, in one of the exact ways consensus has already explicitly decided cats can be bad (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT). —swpb^{T go beyond} 21:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I am still not entirely convinced it entirely falls under WP:SUBJECTIVECAT but I think that is a discussion for another day when there are more design orientated editors (professional designers) editing Wikipedia and such topics are better covered on Wikipedia. As there are examples of bad design out there and/or the effects of bad design (which is what was categorised) just, as DexDor mentioned, as there are for Engineering failures. In the mean time I am happy to withdraw my keep vote.--Discott (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with you that the risk of being 'inherently subjective' is a real one without a reliable reference to back it up.--Discott (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • See reply above for why, even if you could add sources on a category, it would not address the problem. —swpb^{T go beyond} 21:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SUBJECTIVECAT. The 2 articles currently in this category are well categorized already. Describing these things as design failures is opinion rather than fact (every design is a compromise between different requirements). Note: this category was created without any parent categories (indicating a failure to understand wp categorization). Note: There is Category:Engineering failures for articles specifically about failures (which these 2 articles aren't). DexDor ^(talk) 06:41, 27 December 2017 (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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the South African press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
:Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn on the understanding that this is to remain a talk-page-only category. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It does not fall under WP:TRIVIALCAT as it is a category that is of interest to editors with an interest in South African based topics on Wikipedia and, likewise, for Wikimedia ZA.--Discott (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could not be more textbook WP:TRIVIALCAT: "characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability". The mentioning of an article by a newspaper is completely irrelevant to the article's topic, and the choice of which press would even count is arbitrary. Editors interested in editing SA topics can find them through Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa, which uses talk page categories like all WikiProjects; if that project has a particular interest in articles being mentioned in press (unlikely), they can start a task force that also uses a talk page category, not a mainspace category, and allows the press mention to be linked in the project template. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Discott is the creator of this category. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic Wikipedia_pages_referenced_by_the_press should also be deleted. What determines a categories existence is also the utility of that category to other users and editors on Wikipedia and not just its adherence to a particular section of bureaucracy. On the talk page issue, when I created the page I was under the impression (seemingly mistaken) that I was creating a talk page category. It seems I am unfamiliar with the process of creating such a category.--Discott (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Wikipedia_pages_referenced_by_the_press, you will note, is a talk category. Talk categories are created the same way as regular categories, but they only contain talk pages, and they are usually added with WikiProject banners (in that case, ((Press))). Participants at the WikiProject will know how to do the same here, if that project even wants this. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... did you check the category you nominated? When I check it it only contains talk pages. --Discott (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, just realised that I did not add a note on the page that it was for use on talk pages only.--Discott (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose I should give you some background on this category. It was created following a series of emails exchanged within the South African editors and Wikimedia ZA chapter mailing lists on the recent spate vandalism of biography articles on South Africans and the mention of them in the South African media. For South African related articles this is unusual. It was created in an effort to better respond to such concerns and keep track of them. I don't know if that will temper your point of view but at least you know that this category did not come from nowhere.--Discott (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe there were mainspace pages there when I nominated it. If it stays limited to talk pages only, it's acceptable. Context is nice, but no amount of off-wiki discussion can overrule on-wiki consensus, like the consensus that limits cats like this to talk pages. —swpb^{T go beyond} 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay but I did make a conscious effort to ensure all the ones I added linked to talk pages and not main space pages to avoid something like this. I suppose it is possible that either a page on main space was added in error or done so by someone else and then reverted. Either way all pages on that, still very short, category now link to talk pages as intended. I agree with you that off-wiki discussions are not a substitute for on-wiki discussion, that is a good policy. I was however being bold.--Discott (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2017 (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) 07:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Purpose of category unclear, but appears to duplicate existing categories with a promotional spin. —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems to duplicate existing categories and for the reasons already mentioned.--Discott (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the unlikely event that the consensus is to keep, the capitalisation should be changed to Category:Consumer electricals. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 27 December 2017 (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) 07:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians prepared for the Nuclear Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: User category not useful for building the encyclopedia. —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - user category that is useful for building the encyclopedia because, unlike most of WP, it conveys a level of levity and light-heartedness that is severely lacking. Humor facilitates collaboration-a great way to build an encyclopedia. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors can be humorous in many ways. No need to abuse the categ system to be humorous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor Barbara (WVS): WP:USERCAT is a consensus guideline. To go against it, you would need to A) show how this case in particular warrants an exception, or B) lobby to change the guideline itself (which seems to be where you're at, but for which this is the wrong venue). There is no C) act like the guideline doesn't exist or matter. You've been here quite a while, and your failure to go BEYOND (#1) wastes our time. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not lobbying for a change and guidelines do matter. I am not pretending that guidelines do not matter. Referring me to an essay is, well, referring me to an essay (which is not a guideline). Since I don't have the guidelines mastered at this point, I rely on the basics - being bold and assuming good faith. I may have been here for a while, but that does mean you need to scold me. Every once in a while, editors need a new set of eyes to assess what is going on. There seem to be a lot of trees and the forest may not be visible to some. I use categories on user pages all the time to identify those editors with the same interests that I have. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Barbara (WVS):: WP:USERCAT is not an essay. It is a consensus guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not assist collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom/BHG. I'm totally unconvinced by both parts of the "this is humor - humor facilitates collaboration" argument and such categories (e.g. when they appear in maintenance reports) can waste the time of other editors. DexDor ^(talk) 07:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, either a joke category or a serious one that is broadly or vaguely defined. This user category is populated by a single instance of a hardcoded userbox that claims the user "knows what to do in the event of a Nuclear Attack" (my guess would be duck and cover, and beyond that kiss your ass goodbye); while I have no opinion on or obejction to the userbox, it is not necessary or useful to generate a user grouping on this basis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:32, 31 December 2017 (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: speedy deleted per G6 by Anthony Appleyard. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Wrong namespace; duplicate of Shahrak-e Babak —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Flagged as G6, obviously in wrong namespace. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 10#Category:Spanish_language_youtubers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Spanish language youtubers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_22#Category:Youtubers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#Category:YouTube_video_producers —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:Spanish-language YouTubers. Category:YouTubers is an established category, and the language is a defining characteristic of the content they produce. It's no different from Category:Spanish-language films. ℯxplicit 02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Explicit: While Category:YouTubers is an established category, Category:YouTubers by language is not. Are you suggesting it should be created and populated—and if so, what is your thought on the significant overlap with Category:YouTubers by nationality? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:35, 31 December 2017 (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 all. Renaming of some target categories was suggested, but it will be easier to do that later (and they have not been nominated). – Fayenatic London 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1202 in Croatia to Category:1202 in Europe and Category:13th century in Croatia
• Propose merging Category:1212 establishments in Croatia to Category:1212 establishments in Europe and Category:13th-century establishments in Croatia
• Propose merging Category:1412 establishments in Croatia to Category:1412 establishments in Europe and Category:15th-century establishments in Croatia
• etc.

Full list of categories proposed for merging/deleting: see talk page.

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories nominated here contain only one article. The categories nominated for deletion are container categories that naturally become empty after the proposed mergers. This is a batch nomination for the following countries: Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, State of the Teutonic Order and Sweden. Note: Portugal has only been nominated until 1400 because the 15th century was the golden age of Portugal and has a lot of content. The State of the Teutonic Order has been nominated until 1525 when it ceased to exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- I am assuming that all the countries had a meaningful identity at that period. The criterion should ultimately be whether there is enough content to merit the category existing. Where there is not it should be upmerged somehow: sometimes to decades; sometimes to centuries; for short-lived countries to a single country category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- small categories. Renata (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, but keep in mind we have to rename targets to Category:century in the Kingdom of Croatia to differ from modern Republic of Croatia.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 29 December 2017 (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. I suggest that the category should not be re-created without first seeking consensus to do so, including consensus about future sub-categories, at a WP:RFC. Here is a link to the diffs, to facilitate building of lists instead. – Fayenatic London 00:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Africa
• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Eurasia
• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of North Asia
• Propose deleting Category:Neogene Megafauna of Eurasia
• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of North America
• Propose deleting Category:Neogene Megafauna of North America
• Propose deleting Category:Paleogene Megafauna of North America
• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Oceania
• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Australia
• Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of South America

Nominator's rationale: Few (if any) of the articles in these categories describe the animals as megafauna. Some of the articles give no indication of the weight/dimensions of the animal. The Megafauna article lists many definitions of the word - "In terrestrial zoology, megafauna ... are large or giant animals. The most common thresholds used are weight over 40 kilograms (90 lb), over 44 kilograms (100 lb), or over a metric ton 1,000 kilograms (2,205 lb). This includes many species not popularly thought of as overly large, such as ... humans. ... the most common usage encountered in academic and popular writing describes land mammals roughly larger than a human that are not (solely) domesticated. The term is especially associated with the Pleistocene megafauna – ... It is also commonly used for the largest extant wild land animals ..... Other common uses are for giant aquatic species, especially whales, any larger wild or domesticated land animals such as larger antelope and cattle, as well as numerous dinosaurs and other extinct giant reptilians. The term is also sometimes applied to animals (usually extinct) of great size relative to a more common or surviving type of the animal, for example the 1 m (3 ft) dragonflies of the Carboniferous period."

Many of the articles that have been placed in these categories (e.g. Ocelot) would not fit most of the definitions of megafauna. Note: Animal species are well categorized by their position in the tree-of-life. A general upmerge (e.g. to Category:Fauna of Africa) is probably unnecessary as most of the articles are already in lower level categories such as Category:Mammals of Africa.Some articles (e.g. these) may need to be upmerged. DexDor ^(talk) 06:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Without taking sides, it would appear that because Wikipedia cannot define what a "megafauna" is - because its contributors have not done enough research as to which definition is widely accepted in expert WP:RELIABLE secondary sources - there have been inconsistencies in how editors categorize which animals as megafauna. The proposed solution is to do away with the Category. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of eliminating the category, it does not address the original problem. William Harris • (talk) • 10:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different RSs use different definitions - see the lede of the megafauna article. DexDor ^(talk) 18:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - megafauna is not a defining characteristic, especially since multiple definitions of the term exist. Rlendog (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Giant animals, similar to existed Category:Microscopic animals. 178.92.49.94 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What would the inclusion criteria for that category be? See WP:OSE. For info: The category you refer to was created very recently. DexDor ^(talk) 07:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Listify with a view to the list being referenced and used to curate the categories. The nominator is correct in noting that many members probably don't belong. The parent article Megafauna is pretty good, but needs work. Megafauna#Examples should be converted to lists, with some aspiration to become complete and accurate. The links to categories Megafauna#See_also should be replaced by links to the lists produced by listifying the categories. The categories should be kept, per WP:CLS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe can you clarify what part of CLS you think means these categories should be kept? DexDor ^(talk) 07:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey DexDor. What I think I mean is that ... there should be lists of megafauna, and then, per CLS ("each method complements the others"), the listed megafauna on each list should be categorised. Being a type of megafauna is defining. I'm not really saying "Keep these categories", so much as "categories like these need to exist". The set of categories you listed need major renovation, but the renovation / curation is more to do with the contents than the category titles. If you propose to listify the categories, delete the categories, curate the lists, then re-create the categories, then OK. If you propose to stop at deleting the categories, citing poorly curated memberships, then I oppose, as you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We needthe categories, and as poor as these are, they are not worse than useless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC) I most definitely oppose deleting Category:Megafauna, for example. Whether that category should be subcategorised by continent, or by time period, is a worthy topic. I would be happy to see upmerging and trimming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many cases where we have lists without a corresponding category (e.g. for award winners, animals frequently seen at a particular nature reserve) - I think you're misinterpreting CLS. Every species can be categorized as mammal, fish etc so we don't need these categories. DexDor ^(talk) 07:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We need Category:Megafauna, the current membership needing cleaning notwithstanding. I suggest that it should be subcategorised by time period, not by the current continents. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Note that WP:CLS just says that in some occasions lists and categories may happily exist next to each other, but it does not require lists and categories to coexist in all instances. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, WP:NONDEFINING trait. A 'category' that contains everything from humans to jellyfish to giant clams to polar bears to dinosaurs means a stupid category for people to lump their favorite stupid species with nothing uniting them besides 'arbitrarily larger than some other animals'. Category clutter should be staunchly suppressed. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Delete. this category has no stable definition and lumps totally unrelated organisms together, implying they have some connection. Which they do not necessarily have. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Classic WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all – "The most common thresholds used are weight over 40 kilograms (90 lb), over 44 kilograms (100 lb), or over a metric ton 1,000 kilograms (2,205 lb)". This is taking WP:ARBITRARYCAT to ridiculous extremes. Oculi (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This might not be a satisfying reason for everyone but I would like to see it kept as I feel it is of both interest and use to people who are interested in megafauna and its taxonomy.--Discott (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds WP:ILIKEIT, @Discott. Wikipedia does not categorise by attributes that are of both interest and use; per WP:CAT, it categorises by defining attributes which don't fall into any of the deprecated classes in WP:OC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BrownHairedGirl, I thought it would likely be WP:ILIKEIT. Thanks for the clarification.--Discott (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Listify the Megafauna category "with a view to the list being referenced and used to curate the category" per User:SmokeyJoe. But also:
• Delete the per-continent categories as these are almost random collections of large animals that are interesting for very different reasons. Note that the existence of multiple definitions in reliable sources does not show that the concept "megafauna" is useless; rather it shows that the science is in a state of (probably) "progressive" (sensu Lakatos) turmoil as workers in the field seek to clarify and refine the concepts relevant to their particular (and often conflicting) interests. By analogy, the concept of information has different technical meanings in different fields, so any categorisation based on that concept needs to recognise that variability. Similarly, the concept of evolution was around and discussed a long time before Darwinian-style evolution progressively ousted the Lamarckian; and even here, the idea of evolution by acquired characteristics has had a late resurgence due to the developing science of gene expression. So we can expect useful and defining categories to evolve along with knowledge of their subject matter. In the enormous book "Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution" edited by Paul S. Martin, Richard G. Klein, many different practical definitions of megafauna are used by its many different expert authors, each with various interests. In one of several invited overview chapters, Larry Marshall writes (on page 796):

In 1984 the concept of megafauna is considerably different from what it was seventeen years ago. It has become general practice to divide megafauna of earlier workers into various categories.

(And much else that's relevant to this discussion.) There's no reason to suppose the concept has stood still since 1984. I invite editors to consider whether further research can determine the various historical and current usages of the term, with a view to later refining the single category Megafauna which presently lumps all these usages together. yoyo (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong objection to the top category being converted to a topic category (either by purging or by deleting and re-creating) (with a clear note referring to this CFD). Can you clarify what you think should be kept in Category:Megafauna (given that we also have Category:Lists of largest animals, Category:Animal size etc)? If it's only a handful of articles then I'd prefer for it to be deleted as it's likely to get Category:Humans etc put in it again. I'm not sure about the benefit of listifying these categories as many of the articles don't mention the animal's weight or refer to them as megafauna. DexDor ^(talk) 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I came to this mistakenly thinking that this was a simple matter. I now see that there are some pretty screwie definitions out there. For example, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/megafauna "land animals of a given area that can be seen with the unaided eye." I suspect the words "at 10 km" fell off the end of that.

More reasonable is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/megafauna "The large animals of a given region or time, considered as a group", but it is clearly fuzzy, with unstated context assumptions.

The term appears to have its own website: http://www.megafauna.com.au/view/megafauna/megafauna "animals that collectively died out in a mass extinction about 46,000 years ago." & "They were very large, usually over 40kg in weight, generally at least 30% larger than any of their extant (still living) relatives."

There is a broad, but not complete, them that megafauna refers to extinct very large animals. However, it is not much associated with dinosaurs. Instead, it seems associated with the Quaternary extinction event, mostly means marsupials and mammals of that period, but without excluding related extant species.

I think the parent article Megafauna needs a thorough review. I suspect that the best thing to do here, today, is to delete, without prejudice to recreation of megafauna categories following a cleanup of the parent article. I think that megafauna should contain only subcategories, divided by Epoch (geology), but am worried that the term is inherently loosely defined. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename per option A. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming

OPTION A (use political people)

• Category:European political figures‎ to Category:European political people‎
• Category:Caribbean political figures‎ to Category:Caribbean political people‎
• Category:Argentine political figures‎ to Category:Argentine political people‎
• Category:Australian political figures‎ to Category:Australian political people‎
• Category:Bolivian political figures to Category:Bolivian political people‎
• Category:Brazilian political figures to Category:Brazilian political people‎
• Category:Chilean political figures‎ to Category:Chilean political people‎
• Category:Colombian political figures‎ to Category:Colombian political people‎
• Category:Cuban political figures‎ to Category:Cuban political people‎
• Category:Filipino political figures‎‎ to Category:Filipino political people‎
• Category:Japanese political figures‎ to Category:Japanese political people‎
• Category:Mexican political figures‎ to Category:Mexican political people‎
• Category:New Zealand political figures‎ to Category:New Zealand political people‎
• Category:Russian political figures‎ to Category:Russian political people‎
• Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis political figures‎ to Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis political people‎
• Category:Salvadoran political figures‎ to Category:Salvadoran political people‎
• Category:Soviet political figures‎ to Category:Soviet political people‎
• Category:Sri Lankan political figures‎ to Category:Sri Lankan political people‎
• Category:Thai political figures‎ to Category:Thai political people‎
• Category:Uruguayan political figures‎ to Category:Uruguayan political people‎
• Category:Vanuatuan political figures‎ to Category:Vanuatuan political people‎
• Category:Venezuelan political figures‎ to Category:Venezuelan political people‎
• Category:Vietnamese political figures‎ to Category:Vietnamese political people‎

OPTION B (use political figures‎)

• Category:Political people‎ to Category:Political figures‎‎
• Category:Political people by nationality to Category:Political figures‎‎ by nationality
• Category:American political people‎ to Category:American political figures‎‎
• Category:Arab political people‎ to Category:Arab political figures‎‎
• Category:Armenian political people‎ to Category:Armenian political figures‎‎
• Category:Barbadian political people‎ to Category:Barbadian political figures‎‎
• Category:Canadian political people‎ to Category:Canadian political figures‎‎
• Category:Chinese political people‎ to Category:Chinese political figures‎‎
• Category:Egyptian political people‎ to Category:Egyptian political figures‎‎
• Category:Filipino political people‎ to Category:Filipino political figures‎‎
• Category:French political people‎ to Category:French political figures‎‎
• Category:Iranian political people‎ to Category:Iranian political figures‎‎
• Category:Malian political people‎ to Category:Malian political figures‎‎
• Category:Nigerian political people‎ to Category:Nigerian political figures‎‎
• Category:Pakistani political people‎ to Category:Pakistani political figures‎‎
• Category:Political people of the Ottoman Empire‎ to Category:Political figures‎ of the Ottoman Empire‎
• Category:Romanian political people‎ to Category:Romanian political figures‎‎
• Category:Slovenian political people‎ to Category:Slovenian political figures‎‎
• Category:Turkish political people‎ to Category:Turkish political figures‎‎
• Category:Uzbekistani political people‎ to Category:Uzbekistani political figures‎‎

Nominator's rationale: These are parent categories to group to group together actual politicians with other political occupations such as lobbyists, political scientists, political writers‎, political consultants‎, political fundraisers‎ etc. The terms "political figures‎‎" an "political people" are used interchangeably in these categories. We should standardise on one form.

About about 65% of such categories (including the parents Category:Political people/Category:Political people by nationality used "political people", with the remainder "political figures‎". I don't think 65% is a clear enough convention for a WP:C2C speedy.

I much prefer OPTION A (use political people), because to me "figures‎‎" implies people of public standing, and many of these people in the categories are low-profile backroom people: analysts, campaign managers and other functionaries. his also matches the convention of similar categories such as Category:Media people, Category:Film people, Category:Newspaper people, Category:Radio people, Category:Television people, Category:Advertising people, Category:Museum people.

I have included OPTION B (use political figures‎‎) so that if editors prefer "figures", this discussion can implement that. But I hope it doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Since making the nomination, I have found several more "political figures" categories which had been incompletely-parented. I added them to the nom as and when I found them. I did some searches a few minutes ago, and added Colombian, Sri Lankan, Uruguayan, & Venezuelan. I think that's now the full set.

Sorry the full set wasn't listed at the beginning.

I have also been creating lots more "political people" categories, which I have not added to the nom. If the discussion is closed as "rename to figures", I will WP:C2E speedy rename the new cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename A per nom. DexDor ^(talk) 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Most certainly use consistent terminology, in that respect option A and B are both fine and the only undesirable outcome is doing nothing. However in addition option A is preferable over option B because in most other trees we use people and I can't see a reason to deviate from that convention in this particular tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename A per nom. Clearly we should be using 'People' per Category:People (and there is no Category:Figures). Oculi (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer "people" - but would not "politicians" be even better? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron:, no it wouldn't. See the rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wouldn't. This tree has a branch for politicians, obviously, but it also has branches for political consultants, press secretaries, fundraisers, activists, political science academics, and other people who would not be classified as "politicians" in any normal sense of the word but most certainly are involved in politics. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criticism accepted. I know we do not like "associated with" but I wonder whether the target might be "Fooian people associated with politics". All these should be container only categories; most of what O sampled already are. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Option A. Nominator is exactly correct about the problem here, so the only real question is whether consensus prefers to standardize on "people" or "figures" — and I'd prefer "people", because that's consistent with the names of most other broad "industry"-level categories (e.g. sportspeople, media people, marketing people, etc.) Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Option A per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "People in politics" might also be worth considering if these come up again; there are several other "people in X" hierarchies. However, in this case, it might sound as if it means "politician". – Fayenatic London 13:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia edit window help. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Edit window help to Category:Wikipedia edit interface help

Nominator's rationale: To align with the parent, Category:Wikipedia interface help. Alternatively, upmerge the category considering neither parent contains more than 40 pages. (Pinging User:Leevanjackson as the category's creator.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Why make something that is easy to understand into something I don't even understand after being an editor for many years? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barbara (WVS): Could you further explain what makes it difficult to understand? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had not happened upon this discussion and someone asked me what "Wikipedia edit interface help" I would not know the answer. 'Edit window' is well known to many editors. 'Edit interface' is not as well known. IMO. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 14:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barbara (WVS): That may be a fair point. Would you, then, be more comfortable with Category:Wikipedia edit window help? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:22, 31 December 2017 (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, leaning very slightly toward deletion based on the arguments. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Historic centre of Córdoba, Andalusia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, it doesn't add anything to Category:Buildings and structures in Córdoba, Andalusia. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—we have categories for the other two historic centers that are UNESCO World Heritage Sites, Macau and Mexico City. However, the names for topics relating to Córdoba are inconsistent. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per nom. Note: This could be listified into the eponymous article (a list has the advantage of being able to include anything that we don't yet have an article about) although there are already lists in the infobox and navbox. DexDor ^(talk) 07:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- Cordoba is not so large as to need two categories, one for the centre and one for the rest. This contrasts with Mexico City. However, do we need extra categories on the target to reflect its world heritage status? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-populated, and supported by a decent head article at Historic centre of Córdoba, an part of an established series at Category:Historic centres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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