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 e.g. Category:1562 establishments in Moldavia to Category:1562 establishments in Europe, Category:1562 establishments in the Ottoman Empire and Category:16th-century establishments in Moldavia. As the Ottoman Empire spanned more than one continent, it is necessary to add it as a target rather than use it instead of Europe. Note on possible follow-up: Some century categories for Moldavia could be nominated for renaming to "Moldavian Principality" if this appears helpful and likely to gain consensus. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example

• Propose merging Category:1475 in Moldavia to Category:1475 in Europe and Category:15th century in Moldavia
• Propose merging Category:1495 establishments in Moldavia to Category:1495 establishments in Europe and Category:15th-century establishments in Moldavia
• Propose merging Category:1497 in Moldavia to Category:1497 in Europe and Category:15th century in Moldavia
• Propose merging Category:1500 establishments in Moldavia to Category:1500 establishments in Europe and Category:15th-century establishments in Moldavia
• Propose merging Category:1562 establishments in Moldavia to Category:1562 establishments in Europe and Category:16th-century establishments in Moldavia
• Propose merging Category:1590s in Moldavia‎ to Category:1590s in Europe and Category:16th century in Moldavia

The full list of nominated categories can be found here.

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. This is follow-up on a previous nomination that was supported in principle but considered to be too broad so that country specific details could not be discussed. So here is another separate nomination by country. By the way, in the previous nomination there was no mention (yet) of specific issues regarding Moldavia. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. We need to kill with fire these [Date] in [Place] categories that are only trivially populated; keep them only when justifiable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support generally -- Moldavia was a prince of the Ottoman Empire at the time. There might be merit in the initial merge target being Ottoman Empire, rather than Europe; or perhaps (in case we need to abolish an Ottoman tree) also merging there. The Ottoman Empire is probably large enough to keep a tree for. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Moldavia was a prince of the Ottoman Empire at the time." Are you having an off day? Moldavia was a principality, the prince was the head of state. The situation in the 15th century was somewhat complex, due to on-and-off Moldavian–Ottoman Wars between 1420 and 1504. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 1504, it is a good idea to replace merging to Europe by merging to the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all It is ahistorical to speak of a Moldavan political entity until Modern times. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to "Establishments in Moldavian Principality" and create an appropriate article from History_of_Moldova#Principality_of_Moldavia.GreyShark (dibra) 14:09, 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: keep for now. There has been insufficient discussion about User:SMcCandlish's alternative decapitalization proposal, this proposal be well be renominated on a short term together with many other First Ladies categories. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 2 March 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.[1] 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: [2]. --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]

• Use "First ladies ...." per MOS:JOBTITLES, MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS. Such titles are not capitalized except when they directly adhere to a subject's name. When used in the plural like this, they are common-noun phrases by definition (France and the UK have had lots of kings and queens, not Kings and Queens). I support the proposed move in principle and in the future, if we need to add a first gentleman; but until that time, there is no point. Moving it early to a more obscure "spouses" descriptive title is a form of over-disambiguation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:11, 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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Star World Championships in the United States to Category:Sailing competitions in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation Smartskaft (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With 23 pages, this is a useful subcategorisation of Category:Sailing competitions in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it's also a useful subcategorisation of Category:Star World Championships (some were not in the US). How is 1978 Star World Championships over-categorised? Oculi (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. This is nowhere close to SMALLCAT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 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: rename. ℯxplicit 04:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Transdev Group companies to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: This was a WP:C2D speedy nomination to rename to Category:Transdev. It's not a bad idea, even tho it doesn't strictly fit C2D ... but given the company history (see Transdev/Transdev (historic)), I wonder if it might be better to more clearly distinguish the two incarnations. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Transdev seems reasonable, absent evidence we need to disambiguate in some way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:25, 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: merge to Category:Chinese tea. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:China famous tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There are no criteria for what belongs in this category out of everything else in Category:Chinese tea. The article China's Famous Teas was merged into the list of Chinese teas after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's Famous Teas, and this category was left behind. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as either unencyclopedic subjective nonsense like "badass bands", or as a misspelled attempt to create a category for non-notable brand that has already merged in mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge with Category:Chinese tea). Inclusion appear to depend on fashion or the editor's view. Such subjective categories are not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 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: delete empty category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:China tea factories to Category:Tea factories of China

Nominator's rationale: Fix pidgin English title. Not sure either of the two articles in this category would survive AfD; both have only a single source, one a blogspot post and the other a livejournal. But for now the grammar can be fixed. I have no idea why this decision was made in May 2011: Category:Chinese Tea Factories "03:37, 31 May 2011 Cydebot (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Chinese Tea Factories (Robot - Speedily moving category Chinese Tea Factories to Category:China tea factories per CFDS.)" I can't find the CFDS discussion in the archives. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Nom is correct that current name is awkward, but I would prefer Tea factories in China, since this is about physical location not association or origin (i.e., it's different from "Politics of China", "Mammals of China", etc. We're not being very programmatic about this distinction, but should start.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Dennis Bratland: the category is currently empty, was there anything in it when you nominated the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menghai tea factory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaguan tea factory. I guess I should have predicted they would both be deleted before bothering with the category. But I’m no China expert and I didn’t want to railroad these topics out of my own ignorance, so more process was better than less. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:39, 2 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: Rename (WP:NAC). --DexDor ^(talk) 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs to Category:Amherst Mammoths
• Propose renaming Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs athletes to Category:Amherst Mammoths athletes

Nominator's rationale: The intercollegiate athletics teams of Amherst College were renamed "Mammoths" from "Lord Jeffs" in 2017; cf. [3] Jweiss11 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - But can we get all the subcategories done too? Rikster2 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our edit conflict just blew that up. :( Jweiss11 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the proposal to rename to Mammoths. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposed rename. No-brainer. Non-controversial. Accurate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; no reason we'd keep these at former name of team.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Why has this taken so long?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this slam dunk? @BrownHairedGirl: how about you do the honors? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: after the vicious personal abuse which you heaped on me when you tried misusing WP:CFDS to do this renaming, the answer is "no way".

Some other admin will close this discussion in due course. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: nice to see that were are moving forward and putting the improvement of the encyclopedia first. Other admins, can we get some closure on this long overdue and unnecessarily laborious slam dunk move? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11, editors can and do disagree about substance and procedure. When that happens, we discuss it to try to reach a WP:consensus, and policy is to discuss disagreements WP:CIVILly and without personal attacks.

You chose to ignore both those policies.[4] You ignored another editor's warning to you.[5] You ignored my request that you retract.[6] Two weeks later have done nothing to retract your personal attacks, and you still show no sign of grasping either why your proposal was ineligible for speedy renaming or of recognising that WP:CFDS#Admin_instructions_for_handling_listed_entries says clearly "When handling the listings: 1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.".

Like every other editor, my time is contributed on a voluntary basis. I do not volunteer my time for the assistance of editors who abuse Wikipedia by making personal attacks.

No matter how much a requested action might improve Wikipedia, I will step aside and leave others to make their own choices about whether to volunteer their time to assist an editor who ignores basic en.wp policies on user conduct, and who abuses admins for following consensus on process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: this one is long overdue for closure. Can we close it? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is too big for a non-admin to close. "Long overdue" is a bit exaggerated by the way, the oldest discussion still open dates from December 24th. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, it's not exaggerated at all, as there is unanimous support for the move—it's a simple slam dunk—and it should have been pushed through as speedy. Perhaps you can ping an admin who specializes in this topic? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support makes perfect sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 14 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Basketball teams in Orlando, Florida to Category:Basketball in Orlando, Florida. Also merge to Category:Basketball teams in Florida.

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only three articles on basketball teams in the city. TM 15:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Rationale makes sense. Rikster2 (talk) 17:57, 22 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:People of the Prague linguistic circle (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Members of the Prague linguistic circle to Category:Prague linguistic circle

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to separate the members from the main topic category given that the vast majority the current and future contents are likely to be biographies. For comparison, see Category:Vienna Circle. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate, and do the same for Category:Vienna Circle. Category:Prague linguistic circle is not a 'people' category. People in it should be put in a 'people' subcat which should be given appropriate 'people' parents (not as yet done). There are other people who could be put in Category:Prague linguistic circle: much better to have a tightly defined subcat for 'members'. Eg Ladislav Matejka is in the top level cat but does not seem to have been a member: is this 'contributor status' defining for him? Oculi (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Prague linguistic circle is indeed a topic category and not a biographical set category, but I don't see why it couldn't directly contain people. The problem with a 'members' subcat is, as SMcCandlish notes, that this was not a formal membership organization, and so it is challenging to differentiate a full-fledged 'member' from a 'contributor'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate per Oculi. The Vienna Circle category is actually a good example of why this category should be kept - it contains about half a dozen non-biographies which would be better separated out. Grutness...wha? 10:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• K&P, per Grutness (also with regard to the other category) and Oculi. However, consider a "people" name; we should avoid misleadingly using "members" for things that are not formal membership organisations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If kept, I agree the category should use "people" instead of "members". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:55, 24 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. ℯxplicit 04:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Male dogs to Category:Individual dogs
• Propose merging Category:Female dogs to Category:Individual dogs

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Sorting by dog sex serves no encyclopedic purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. I suspect it would make more sense to split the individual dogs category by the dogs' roles (which has already started with Category:Racing greyhounds and the like. Splitting out Category:Individual pet dogs/rescue dogs etc, for instance, would probably be more useful. Grutness...wha? 09:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yar, that is the plan. Though I would avoid a "pet" subcat, per WP:OCMISC, since it's just the default/"other" pile (i.e., dogs kept for no particular, narrow working dog/sporting dog/show dog purpose). To the extent we might ever need to thin that herd, the way to do is by sorting show/sport dogs into championship subcats and the like by their titles, the way we do for human sport champions, probably.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking specifically of pets of heads of state, etc, like Buddy (dog). Perhaps Category:Individual dogs in politics, although that sounds weird. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Individual dogs is pretty weird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are certainly ways in which gender can be connected with notability in the case of humans, but that really doesn't pertain to dogs at all — for example, I can't really see any discernible reason why Gabi being female has any sort of WP:DEFINING relationship with the reasons why she has an encyclopedia article. Grutness is correct, if we want to diffuse the overall dogs category, it would be more appropriate to do so based on role than on gender. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, if merged, why wouldn't we merge it also to Category:Male mammals and Category:Female mammals respectively? Or should those categories be nominated as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because for some species, dividing it into male and female makes more sense. Humans are in those categories, for instance, as are stud bulls and dairy cattle, and as are racehorses, which compete in specific events according to their sex. With animals like dogs, though, there's rarely a need for such separation (let's face it, the most famous fictional dog is arguably Lassie - a female who was regularly portrayed in screen by a male, with no-one taking any notice of the fact). Grutness...wha? 01:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge per nom and Grutness. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 11 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Glossaries of medical terms to Category:Glossaries of medicine

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the categories are for the same thing. Prefer the more WP:CONCISE name. PS: This appears to be an accidental fork that was later categorized in a parent/child relationship (the later probably by me, though I won't bother looking).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per nominator. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 22 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.