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. ℯxplicit 06:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Films set in a fictional African country to Category:Films set in Africa
• Propose merging Category:Films set in a fictional Asian country to Category:Films set in Asia
• Propose merging Category:Films set in fictional Caribbean nations to Category:Films set in the Caribbean
• Propose merging Category:Films set in a fictional European country to Category:Films set in Europe
• Propose merging Category:Films set in a fictional Northern European country to Category:Films set in Scandinavia
• Propose merging Category:Films set in a fictional North American country to Category:Films set in North America

Nominator's rationale: merge, there is no substantial difference between a film set in a real continent in which the specific country has not been mentioned versus a film set in a real continent in which the country name has been invented. In both cases it is in a real continent, and in both cases there is no real country known. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion, pinging the participants: @Grutness, Fayenatic london, Johnpacklambert, and DexDor:. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not object if there was a double merger, also to Category:Films set in a fictional country; otherwise I would oppose this as it would de-populate that hierarchy. However, I'd prefer to leave things as they are, as the nominated categories are big enough to be useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the categories are big enough for navigation, and could well be useful. A double merge per Fayenatic would be a reasonable alternative. Note - if kept, then I'd suggest renaming the "Northern European" one to "Scandinavian" and the Caribbean one to Category:Films set in a fictional Caribbean country to match the rest of the scheme. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a good way of subcatting Category:Films set in a fictional country, whose existence the nominator seems to have overlooked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I take the nominators point about whether or not the country is named is a small thing to categorize by, but the nomination would mean that, for example, Category:Films set in Europe would (unhelpfully) directly contain films set in multiple real European countries, films set in a European country that doesn't (yet) have its own subcat, films set in an unspecified European country and films set in a fictonal European country. DexDor ^(talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: A fictional country in a particular continent need not resemble any real one. To be honest, though, I can’t think of any specific examples. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BrownHairedGirl and genre ties to films set in fictional countries.--Pharos (talk) 18:46, 16 March 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: no consensus. I could relist, but with one verbose editor changing his mind twice, the discussion is hard to follow. Additionally, there was some puzzlement over choice of scope, and the nominator failed to follow the normal CFD format of a bulleted list all the nominated categories and the proposed actions, which may mislead passers-by about the scope of the nomination. So I am closing without prejudice to an immediate re-nomination of some or all of the categories here .... but I hope that any new nomination will list all included categories, and explain why the nomination has a particular scope, e.g. if Category:American Christians by state is omitted, why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:American Latter Day Saints by state to Category:American Latter Day Saints

Also adding the state-based associated state categories as well as the nearly unpopulated Category:American Roman Catholics by state and Category:Roman Catholics from Michigan.

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS, this is a non-notable intersection of nationality, religion, and national sub-unit (state). TM 17:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Category:American Latter Day Saints has 1,338 members still to be distributed amongst this scheme. It is fairly standard for a large acceptable US category to be subcatted by state. Oculi (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting people by religion and state is a dangerous precedent and the intersection is largely non-defining. Category:American Roman Catholics has more than double the number of articles in it and it is still a useful subcategory. The number of articles that are sorted by state is less than 250.--TM 18:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:American Christians by state. Is this dangerous or is it just the LDS? As for the number, an editor (Johnpacklambert) appears to be working on it.
I support the deletion of the 2 catholic ones as the scheme has not been developed. Oculi (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Christians by state was created at the same time and by the same editor that created these LDS categories. We should judge whether we want to sort people by state, nationality, and religious denomination. I think it is dangerous because it will lead to massive category clutter and, as Macroapelle wrote below, the religion of these people is largely non-defining, especially in relation to their place of residence.--TM 19:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from the extensive remarks below, voluminous even by JPL's usual levels of prolixity, Johnpacklambert will not be developing the scheme any further and so I now 'Support'. The problem in my view is where someone is 'from'; I did find several who were 'from' many states, which does lead to category clutter (nothing to do with LDS or religion). Oculi (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, should these 1338 articles be diffused at all? As they apparently don't fit in relevant subcategories (like "leaders" and "hymnwriters") it is likely that their LDS membership is hardly defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a useful way to disperse a large category. People's religion is often the most defining thing to how they see themselves. Considering that the LDS Church is one where devote members are highly involved, where a large percentage of members serve as missionaries and such, saying that their religion is not defining is clearly not true from a perspective of the people themselves. It also affects large amounts of how they live their lives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These categories should not be deleted if the Chrisitan categories are kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all to Category:American Latter Day Saints. Some of the people in the state sub-cats are not currently in the parent cat or any other sub-cats. I have to admit I want to keep this category, but considering how many categories a person such as Henry B. Eyring can be put in (6), or questions of what to do with someone like George M. Ottinger or Joseph Freeman (Mormon) who became a Latter-day Saint after leaving some of the places where they spent their formative years. The situation is even more complex because A-During the first 20 years of Mormonism they faced multiple forcible moves, B-during the late 19th-century several individuals moved to out of the way places to avoid prosecution on polygamy charges, so does Emily Wells Grant's years in Colorado hiding as part of the underground make her "from Colorado", 3-while most people would not consider Harry Reid to have been "from virginia", the fact that he was a young Mike Lee's hometeacher in a ward in Virginia means that within a Mormon context his Virginia connection is notable, 4-Back to the 19th-century, the Church proactively urged all to gather to the intermountain west, so that people who joined the LDS Church in other parts of the country were primarily from Utah in their public actions, but 5-Starting in the 1860s Mormon settlements beyond the limits of Utah sprung up, with their own history, 6-are 2 years as a missionary and 3 years as mission president enough to make Ronald A. Rasband from New York, and if not, does his not quite defined time in Connecticut make him "from Connecticut", and what of the fact he lived in Connecticut but worked in New York. Then there is the fun fact that many would not count being a student somewhere as making you from there, so how does that leave Edwin S. Hinckley and Robert H. Hinckley. Robert spent a part of his formative years living in Michigan while his dad studied at the University of Michigan. If his dad had been a non-student, this would almost centainly be long enough at that point in life to make him "from Michigan", but does it work with his dad as a student, and if not, why not, and if it does, then certainly his dad whose was in Michigan as long is also "from Michigan", and if that is true, than Russell M. Nelson is from Minnesota, and Massachusetts as well as Utah, and also either Washington D.C. or Maryland, I am less than clear which one he actually lived in. Over 98% of Latter Day Saints are part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church in general does not follow state lines in its organization. The Church divides The United States up into 10 areas. These only date back to 1984, and the number has gone up since then, although there used to be 11. These areas also take in all of Canada. The rest of the world is divided into a further 14 areas, although the numbers there have fluctuated even more. In the case of the United States and Canada, area boundaries are not even fixed, they fluctuate as new stakes and missions are formed. Utah has 3 areas named after it and mainly in it, although each extended outside Utah to some extent, and also two other areas take in parts of Utah. Mission, stake and even ward/branch boundaries often cross state lines. Thus when Ransband was a missionary his mission took in parts of at least 3 states, and his first area was in New Jersey. When he was mission president his mission took in part of Connecticut as well as mainly New York, so he mainly was in New York. Ezra Taft Benson was raised in Idaho, but just north of the Utah border and in the Cache Valley, so his going to Utah State University makes sense. Post-World War II Mormonism has a high rate of people going to Brigham Young University. Only about a third of the American Students there are from Utah, and various factors mean that many end up later living in states other than where they were raised. In the case of Michigan the percentage of Mormons who are natives of the state is far below the percentage of the total population that was born in the state. This phenomenon was even more pronounced in the 1910-1960 time frame, so much so that the historical atlas, Mapping Mormonism, devouts multple pages to analyzing the Mormon outmigration from Utah, with its main points of ending being the Northest, Midwest, California and Oregon/Washington. This is so pronounced that all of Henry J. Eyring's grandparents were part of the migration out of Utah/Idaho, yet his parents were born in and raised in New Jersey and California. H J Eyring was born in California, but raised there and in Idaho and maybe a little in Utah. The Mormon missionary system also mitigates against deep connections to a particular place, and people with the deepest connections to the church, such as those who work full time as religion instructors, or translators like Eduardo Balderas, have tendencies to be drawn to Utah and to a lesser extend Idaho, even if raised elsewhere. See for example Fred E. Woods and Robert L. Millett for two such examples. The Moving forces behind 20th-century Michigan Mormonism, George Romney, Lenore Romney, Howard J. Stoddard, LeRoy Wirthlin, Avard Fairbanks and Richard Headlee (at least of those who we have articles on), had all been raised elsewhere. The most prominent Mormons who grew up in Michigan we have articles on Mitt Romney and Ann Romney spent their adult lives everywhere but Michigan. Law, sports and other endevors we separate by state each have particular rules, although some seem to be a lack of rules. Mormons either gain their notability from endevors not connected to Mormonism per se (Mitt Romney), or from a connection to Mormonism. While Romney has a special connection and meaning to those in Massachusetts, more so in the about a third of the state that was in the Boston Stake when he was president, it is not enough to limit him in any reasonable way to the from Massachusetts category for Latter Day Saints. On the other hand, a person like Dallin H. Oaks, Joseph Smith or even Russell M. Nelson has connections with Mormonism that transcend place. This is also true of most artists and scholars connected with the faith. Spencer W. Kimball not only was born in Utah, raised in Arizona, served a mission in Missouri, but when he was stake president his stake included not just a small part of Arizona (Thatcher, Arizona but not even Safford), but some of New Mexico, the El Paso area, and even extended on into Mexico. I have to admit that I am skeptical of many of these by state schemes, but this is one that is especially problematic. I think what seals the deal is that Gladys Knight probably does not belong in the Latter Day Saints from Georgia category, because although she is probably the most notable Latter Day Saint who qualifies as from Georgia, and her qualifying as being from Georgia is not in dispute, she was never a Latter Day Saints while resident in Georgia, so the matter is messy. This is probably overly long, but I hope I get the point across that this is an especially bad category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disperse articles in parent -- This applies both to LDS and Catholics (where the category has over 2800 articles, with some more in American Catholics. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose I just realized we have categories Category:Methodist from Texas and Category:Baptists from Texas. This is a much broader phenomenon than this specific nomination addresses. Either we should have no religion by state categories, or the Latter Day Saint by state categories almost certainly survive especially considering the very unique state distribution (Utah is the only state in the US where the majority of the population belongs to one specific Church, Mormons in Utah outnumber those in California by over 2 to 1 even though there are more than 4 times as many people in California, there are almsot as many Mormons in Idaho as in California, and possibly sometime this year there will be more Mormon congregations in Idaho than California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 20 February 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 21#Category:Cultural_depictions_of_Pierre_Trudeau. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Cultural depictions of Pierre Trudeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just three examples of what's described by the title -- and only one of the three, the biopic Trudeau itself, can be properly said to be defined by the fact of being a cultural depiction of PET, because it's the only one here that couldn't still have existed even if he hadn't. He's neither literally depicted nor a major presence in The Kidnapping of the President — Aubert Pallascio cameos in one scene as an unnamed Canadian Prime Minister whose characterization is sprinkled with allusions to PET's political persona, but is not meant to be literally perceived as PET himself — and in Uncut he's a mere maguffin, present in the plot only via photographs, and could have been replaced with literally any other real or fictional person without actually changing the film or its themes at all. So neither of those films are defined by his "presence" in the narratives, and even if we let them stand just because he was technically there, we'd still need more than three entries before a category for them was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - for some reason documentaries had not been included in the category (despite being present in many other "cultural depictions" cats). Adding them has brought the category up to a more practical, though still small, size. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That still really only gets us to three, because The Kidnapping of the President and Uncut still don't belong here. And all of SCTV just because Martin Short occasionally played PET in the odd sketch here and there? Er, no, it's not defined by that either. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and move these three articles to Category:Pierre Trudeau. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 18 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Bangkok Christian College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one member, unlikely to be expanded. (Original creator probably made a mistake and intended to create Category:Bangkok Christian College F.C.) Paul_012 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Buddhist Communities of Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: While it may make sense to identify communities as Buddhist in cases where religion forms a significant and defining aspect of the group, I don't think this can be argued for "Buddhists communities" in Thailand, where 94% of the population is Buddhist. The current members of the category are ethnic groups in Thailand which just happen to be Buddhist; they aren't actual ethnoreligious groups, which the category tree falls under, in the strict sense. At the very least the category has to be renamed to remove the capital C. Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all other categories in Category:Buddhist communities by country. Sloppy work by the same editor Sandesh Tupsundre, who has been indiscriminately adding these religion categories he created to numerous ethnic groups that are not defined by religion, ignoring advice by multiple editors on User talk:Sandesh Tupsundre. I've reverted many of their edits, by it gets really tiring. -Zanhe (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible Keep -- While Buddhism is the dominant religion in Thailand, this category is not wholly pointless as it is categorising tribes by religion. This issue is perhaps whether there is any sibling, relating to non-Buddhist tribes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not all intersections between ethnicity and religion are trivial, but this is clearly a case of a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 18 February 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: speedy delete per WP:G6 (routine housekeeping). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:2018-19 UPSL season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale:

1. Meaningless category/redirect
2. Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 15:22, 12 February 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: Speedy keep. We just had a CFD on the subcats which was open for 27 days. This attempt to overturn that outcome as soon as it closed is WP:FORUMSHOPping. WP:DRV is that way.-BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Women rulers to Category:Female rulers

Nominator's rationale: I just picked this up as a result of subcategory renamings showing up on my watchlist - the name of this category is clearly ungrammatical, as well as being overly specific. Would a 10-year old female ruler be categorised as a "woman ruler"? Would the male equivalent category be called "men rulers"? All the subcats should also be renamed. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it's not ungrammatical; we seem to have this discussion every few months. In any case the nominator needs to tag this category, and also tag and list all the subcats for the same rename, as they have just been harmonised to use 'women' rather than 'female'. Oculi (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're having this conversation every few months, there is clearly something wrong. Do you consider "men ruler" to be grammatical? It's the same thing. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Women drivers" - ever heard that? Please look over previous discussions. Eg this one. Oculi (talk) 10:33, 12 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Nominator's rationale: No purpose served. Störm (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural question @Störm: please can you explain why you believe no purpose served? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are in ministry cat making it parent cat. I don't we need parent cats when they all are present in Category:Pakistani federal ministries. Störm (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a typical case of an unnecessary eponymous category, where the only content is a MAIN ARTICLE and a subcategory, and the main article can perhaps be that for the sub-cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 18 February 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: speedy rename per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:ANTI- albums to Category:Anti- (record label) albums
• Propose renaming Category:ANTI- compilation albums to Category:Anti- (record label) compilation albums
• Propose renaming Category:ANTI- live albums to Category:Anti- (record label) live albums
• Propose renaming Category:ANTI- soundtracks to Category:Anti- (record label) soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalization and to match its parent article, Anti- (record label). 153.206.208.162 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 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. All articles are subcategorized under Category:LGBT people and Category:Serial killers. The sole article which was not present in the former (Gilles de Rais), does not mention his sexual orientation, and homosexuality specifically was discussed on the article's talk page. ℯxplicit 06:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT serial killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category is a recreation of Category:LGBT serial killers, which has been deleted more than once. The category Category:LGBT murderers has also been deleted, and does not currently exist. Another editor, EurekaLott (talk · contribs · count) has tagged the category for speedy deletion and tagged the category as follows: This category may inappropriately label persons. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people for advice on how to apply categorization to articles relating to people. See also the policy at WP:BLPCAT regarding categorization by religion or sexual orientation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Previous discussions were in 2006 & 2008: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Category:LGBT_serial_killers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008 March 16#Category:LGBT_serial_killers. But consensus can change after 10 years, and it's time for another discussion, so I have struck the speedy. Let the debate run ... and if there is still a consensus to delete, then WP:SALT it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that since the last deletion was ten years ago and consensus can change, we should rediscuss this rather than speedying it off a ten-year-old discussion. But my own personal view hasn't actually changed in the intervening decade: per WP:CATEGRS, dedicated subcategories by sexual orientation are not a routine thing that every category for people should automatically have, but are restricted to cases where the intersection of sexuality with notability claim is a defining characteristic in its own right. For example, LGBT writers create a sourceable and well-defined and extensively studied thing called LGBT literature; LGBT sportspeople are extensively analyzed for the ways in which sexuality intersects with performance and even participation in sports; and on and so forth. But there's no comparable analysis out there of what might make "LGBT serial killers" a distinct class of topic from "heterosexual serial killers" — all this can ever be is "people who happen to be both X and Y", where X and Y don't have a defining relationship with each other. And that's exactly the type of situation where we don't create a category like this. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete I have to join others in arguing there is no defining way that this groups a defined body of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / manual merge as this concerns a trivial intersection. However we should check that the articles remain in the LGBT tree and in the serial killers tree after deletion of this category. If that is not the case, a manual merge is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 23 February 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 20#Category:Railway_stations_served_by_London_Midland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Railway stations served by London Midland to Category:Railway stations served by West Midlands Trains

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination of contested speedy. I am neutral for now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Copy of discussion at WP:CFDS:[1]

---

• Category:Railway stations served by London Midland to Category:Railway stations served by West Midlands Trains – C2D, London Midland was succeeded by West Midlands Trains in December 2017. Rollingsow (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really comfortable processing this one without a full discussion. C2D does not technically apply to set categories; however, more than that, I wonder if there are any railyway stations that were served by London Midland but are not served by West Midland Trains. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep both Even if the franchise has a new name, the fact that a station was formerly served by London Midland (and any other defunct railway companies) remains true and is worth a category. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be absurd to categorize railway stations by all of the former companies serving the station, that also goes against WP:OVERLAPCAT. However, I wonder if we can rename categories like this in such a way that it becomes independent of the railway company, e.g. Category:Railway stations of the West Midland franchise. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:West Midlands franchise railway stations since this is specific to the franchise and not the operating company, as we did with Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 14#Category:Railway stations served by Greater Anglia). Rail franchises (the areas) are supposed to be very long term, but their operators change every few years. @Eastmain: We don't categorise by former post-privatisation TOC in any other cases. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Support alt rename to Category:West Midlands franchise railway stations. This is exactly what I meant earlier on. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I can see the merit in the alternative suggestion, however the franchises changes almost as often as the franchisees. While the theory is that franchise areas are long term and don't change, reality is that they are far from stable, both in terms of names and geographical coverage.

  For example the Thameslink franchise was merged with the Great Northern franchise in 2006, then renamed the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise in 2014, merged with the Southern franchise in 2015, with consideration now being given to breaking it up again.[2] Likewise the South Eastern franchise became the Integrated Kent franchise in 2006, and is being relet as the South Eastern franchise. The InterCity West Coast franchise is being relet as the West Coast Partnership while the Greater Anglia franchise became the East Anglia franchise. Independently of each rename, all three have been chopped and changed with routes and stations added and deleted mid-term. And other changes are proposed such as splitting the Greater Western franchise.[3]

  Franchises are generally awarded for seven to ten years and in about half of cases, the incumbent successfully retains, so not as if they are turning over regularly. After 21 years of privatisation, of the franchises that have remained reasonably stable in terms of station structure, the highest number of franchisees for any is four, the troublesome InterCity East Coast. Of those that have not gone bust, ScotRail has changed operators twice and the rest once only or never.

  Since 2016, all franchises have received generic brands as they have been relet (with intellectual property vested with the government rather than the franchisee) as specified in the contracts even when the incumbent has retained, e.g. Abellio Greater Anglia became Greater Anglia, First TransPennine Express became TransPennine Express. This will mean going forward, when a franchise changes hands from the outside it will be a seamless transition with the brand name and livery carrying across as happened when the ScotRail franchise passed from First ScotRail to Abellio ScotRail with only the small "proudly operated by xxx" markings changing. As the brand name will remain stable, there will be no need to rename categories.

  Then there is how those operators that are not franchised are dealt with, concession holders like London Overground and open access operators like Hull Trains. Would also put out of step with the naming convention adopted for all other (apart from Greater Anglia and Thameslink) similar categories at Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by train operating company.

  In answer to the question about stations served by London Midland that are not served by West Midlands Trains, there aren't any as the franchise map in this case was unchanged, but in other cases it hasn't been a straight like-for-like changeover, e.g. CrossCountry does not call at stations on the West Coast Main Line that predecessor Virgin CrossCountry did. Agree it would be an overkill to have a category for every former railway company, with pre-1923 grouping companies this could run into dozens for some of the major stations, Manchester Piccadilly has been served by 14 train operating companies since 1996. Rollingsow (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If franchises are equally unstable we should consider categorizing of railway stations neither by railway company nor by franchise. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As fortunately the franchise is stable in this case I keep supporting the alt rename, should there be any doubt about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original proposed rename, i.e. Category:Railway stations served by West Midlands Trains. I was the original nominator of the speedy rename, am presuming this doesn’t end up counting as a duplicate vote, please delete if it does. Rollingsow (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom While the franchisee changes periodically, the scope of the franchise, in terms of stations served, hardly does. While we do not like categories that require regular maintenance, in these cases the work needed is merely a change of name. Unfortunately most of the franchises do not have a stable name, so that these periodic renames are necessary. ScotRail, East Anglia, and some others may have a stable name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 18 February 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: merge per @Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:American baseball coaches of Italian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Also listing Category:American baseball players of Italian descent, Category:American baseball people of Italian descent, and Category:American baseball managers of Italian descent

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS, this is categorization by a non-notable intersection of ethnicity, nationality, and profession. TM 00:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but these need to be upmerges rather than delete. Category:American baseball coaches of Italian descent needs to be upmerged to Category:American baseball coaches and Category:American people of Italian descent etc. (Eg the present nom removes Mike Scioscia from Category:American people of Italian descent altogther.) Oculi (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them for deletion rather than merging because most articles make no reference to the subjects' Italian ancestry. This is true for most ethnicity-based articles on Wikipedia.--TM 02:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Full merge to Category:American baseball coaches and manual merge to Category:American people of Italian descent (only if Italian ancestry is unquestionable) per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:17, 18 February 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:Medical and health organisations based in Croatia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Medical and health associations based in Croatia to Category:Medical and health organisations in Croatia

Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – but to Category:Medical and health organizations based in Croatia. The parent is Category:Organizations based in Croatia ('based in' was a cfd decision in 2006) and so all the subcats should follow suit (that is 'z' and 'based in'). Oculi (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming, but I'm neutral on whether "based" is necessary or not. Category:Medical and health organizations by country is an absolute dog's breakfast of inconsistency as to the use or non-use of "based", so there's no clear standard for these categories other than the use of "organi[s/z]ations" rather than "associations". Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but Category:Organizations by country is splendidly coherent, with just one sore thumb. Oculi (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as Medical and health organisations go there doesn't generally seem to be any issue about where they are based. It is very rare for them not to operate in the place where they are based. Rathfelder (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• World Health Organization, Médecins Sans Frontières, Pharmaciens Sans Frontières? Oculi (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

true, but there are many thousands of Medical and health organizations which are firmly settled in one place. Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are missing the point of 'based in'. It is to exclude (from the category) organisations present in a country but not based there. EG WHO is present in Croatia. Oculi (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we want to to exclude organisations present in a country but not based there? Rathfelder (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Because being present in a country is not defining (eg McDonald's would be in over 200 'in Foo' categories). Also because it was thus decided at cfd: in 2006. Also because a subcat of Category:Organizations based in Croatia is restricted by the rules of logic to 'Organizations based in Croatia'. Oculi (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oculi is correct: because it would lead to extreme category bloat, requiring a company like McDonald's to be filed "in" hundreds of by-country categories. So we categorize multinational companies and organizations by the location of their head office, not the location of every individual branch. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Oculi to Category:Medical and health organizations based in Croatia. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt rename per Oculi. For example the Red Cross is probably present in Croatia, but we do not want to have the Red Cross in a Croatia category (and in a sibling category of almost every country in the world). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite so. Oculi (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think to form a clear picture of healthcare, especially in less developed countries, we do need organisations that are not based there. Healthcare is not like the fast food industry. I set up Category:Charities operating in another country for a similar purpose. Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With the example of the Red Cross in mind, we don't need organisations that are present almost everywhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 17 February 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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:First Ladies of Trinidad and Tobago to Category:Spouses of Presidents of Trinidad and Tobago

Nominator's rationale: To use an unambiguous, simple descriptive title per WP:NDESC.

This arises out of a speedy nomination to rename to Category:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Trinidad and Tobago, following the election of Paula-Mae Weekes as President of Trinidad and Tobago. She is due to take office in March 2018, and the speedy nom was based on the unevidenced assumption that her husband would be called "First Gentleman".

I see no evidence that either title has any formal status in Trinidad and Tobago; "First Lady" may be customary usage, but the only evidence I see of that is usage by the 5th and current President.[4] In any case, en.wp is not bound to use official names, and Category:Spouses of national leaders contains plenty of other "spouse" categories.

Plus, the descriptive title "Spouses of Presidents of Trinidad and Tobago" removes any ambiguity with spouses of Prime Ministers of Trinidad and Tobago. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the discussion on the speedy nomination: [5]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Spouses. I just ran a Google check and apparently Paula-Mae Weekes is actually unmarried, so for the moment the "first gentleman" thing is a purely theoretical issue that will only become relevant if she gets married while in office. But nevertheless, if we can't confirm that "first lady" is actually the formal and official title of a male president's wife, then we should indeed use a purely descriptive title rather than an unofficial and non-standard one imported from somewhere else that we will eventually have to regender regardless. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep category name - Keep the present category title of First Ladies of Trinidad and Tobago for the reasons listed below. Let me preface everything by saying I hate opposing moves by other editors on here. It's the part of Wikipedia I like the least. I don't oppose a move/rename to be stubborn, disagreeable, or impose some kind of weird American title or cultural import on other countries. However, I will oppose moves/renames if an existing category name is factually accurate and, in the case of Trinidad, the usage of "First Lady" for this category is correct.
  • I do have to acknowledge that I was wrong to propose a speedy renaming of this category before President-elect Weekes had taken office. Based on naming conventions, I still think "First Gentleman" would have been correct, but obviously we won't 100% know for sure without someone in that position. Bearcat is correct that the President-elect is unmarried, something I missed, and this article from Newsday confirms it. (Newsday: Paula Mae Weekes in a nutshell) I prematurely overstepped with the original speedy move proposal in this case. Since there is no "First Gentleman", the original category name of "First Lady" should be retained.
  • I can see the ambiguity concern, but there's little chance of confusion with the wife or husband of the Prime Minister, particularly now that the container category, Category:Spouses of leaders of Trinidad and Tobago, has been created to hold both. It's acknowledged in the article and simple disclaimer on the top of the "First Lady" category page would suffice instead of a move, while retaining the titke. The position of First Lady is far more defined in Trinidad, compared to the husband/wife/spouse of the prime minister.
  • The term First Lady has been used in Trinidad since at least the 1980s and probably earlier. Zalayhar Hassanali, the country's second First Lady (who needs her own article), uses the term herself, including during this with Aramco World. And past Presidents and First Ladies of Trinidad have used the term both officially and customarily as well, as shown by sources below. To use the U.S. as a comparison, it's similar to Martha Washington or Dolly Madison. It's highly unlikely that Washington or Madison would have used the term during their lifetimes, as the "First Lady" title wasn't coined until the late 1800s, but the unofficial title of "First Lady" applies retroactively to them as well.
  • The usage of "First Lady" is accepted and commonplace in Trinidad. (It's iffier in certain other countries, notably Ireland, where wife of the President is still far more accepted than "First Lady or Gentleman", so "spouse" probably works better for a category containing the husbands or wives of Irish presidents.) The category name "First Lady of Trinidad of Tobago" acknowledges the more official and unofficial customary roles of this specific position and its holder (as shown by government sources), rather just a broad, vaguer term like "spouses" in Trinidad's case. The category name should reflect this with "First Lady".
  • The use of "First Lady" is widespread in Trinidad and Tobago's government and media. And again, not to sound repetitive, but the category name should reflect this.
    • Government - Yes, these examples apply to the last two First Ladies (& President), but they are official government sources using the customary title in official documents, events, sites, and press releases, which implies more than than just customary usage.
      • • Office of the President - First Lady's profile - official government site
        • Government of T&T: First Lady pays a Courtesy Call on the Consulate in New York
        • First Lady launches centenary celebrations of the Naparima Girls' College
        • National Library: First Lady Dr Jean Ramjohn-Richards...
    • Diplomacy and international organizations - having worked within these fields, a foreign government or international org would not use the title, even in passing, without, at the very least, official and unofficial protocol. Examples... US State Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games UN's Pan American Health Organization CARICOM UNFPA Caribbean Carter Center: First Lady Patricia Robinson
    • Books and articles published by government and private sources written on the topic, including "Zalayhar, Life of a First Lady" (article from Trinidad and Tobago Guardian, the country's oldest paper).
    • Usage of "First Lady" by major domestic print and broadcast media. Some examples....
      • CCN TV6: Trinidad and TobagoNewsdayGuardian with official government quotesTrinidad Express

Cheers! Scanlan (talk) 02:58, 18 February 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.