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) 06:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Spiders of Great Britain to Category:Spiders of Europe (or delete - see below)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Zodarion italicum).

Note: I'm not sure how many spider species there are in GB, but according to this there are 390 species of spiders in Ireland and I would expect there to be at least as many in GB so this category doesn't work well as a list.

Note: The 5 articles currently in this category are all already in a subcat of the merge target (e.g. Category:Wolf spiders of Europe) so no upmerge is currently necessary.

For info: 2014 spiders CFD, 2014 GB CFD DexDor ^(talk) 19:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – there is some distribution difference between northern and southern Europe, but not between Great Britain and northern Europe (the standard field guide, Roberts, is called Spiders of Britain and Northern Europe). (The Checklist of British Spiders lists 654 species at present, by the way.) Personally, I would also get rid of intersectional categories like Category:Wolf spiders of Europe; they are unnecessary, confusing and inconsistently used. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support along with the removal of most categories edited by both NotWith and Caftaric, such as Category:Sheet weaver spiders of Europe (these 2 editors have remarkably similar styles and interests). Category:Araneomorph spiders of Europe is a good one. Oculi (talk) 22:52, 17 May 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) 05:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Probability journals to Category:Statistics journals

Nominator's rationale: "Probability" is inseparably connected to "statistics" and I don't really see a reason to have two separate cats here. Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as long as Category:Probability and Category:Statistics remain distinct. (I personally think the 2 are quite different.) Oculi (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the distinction is meaningless here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the two subjects are often conflated in elementary treatments, probability and statistics are as different as measure theory and survey sampling at the academic research level of these journals. Hence, I think it would be better to keep these cats separate. If combined, however, the resulting merged category should be Category:Probability and Statistics journals to show users that both subjects are included. --Mark viking (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Probability theory and statistics are quite different branches of Maths. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is that why there are journals like Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics? Or Annals of Mathematical Statistics, which despite its title, has "probability" in its scope and like several other journals is in both cats? --Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I left a notification at WikiProject Mathematics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate. Probability theory and statistics are related, but they are different disciplines. Any disciplinary boundary will have some gray areas covered by both disciplines; this pair is not unusual in that respect and the overlap is not a good reason for merging. (It doesn't help that some statistical mechanics journals appear to have been misclassified as statistics; that subject is closer either to physics or to probability theory.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 25 May 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. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Food Network (Canada) series to Category:Food Network series

Nominator's rationale: Majority of the shows included are Food Network series, only a handful are actually Food Network Canada productions. --woodensuperman 15:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't merge a category when you have uniquely Canadian series in it such as "Chef at Home, "Chef at Large," "Chef Abroad," "Pitchin' In," etc. and they weren't produced by Food Network in the United States. Yes, Food Network in Canada air shows produced by its American counterpart, but that's not a valid reason to merge. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs a serious purge. --woodensuperman 08:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And probably renamed Food Network Canada series. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @Headbomb: It doesn't need renaming. It already has Canada in the category title. It's redundant to rename it just to remove "Canada" from parenthesis. Leave it as it is. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's produced by an entity named "Food Network Canada", then the category should use the actual name of that entity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, then the article Food Network (Canada) should be renamed to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle and Headbomb, Food Network in Canada stopped using Canada in the network name. Food Network hasn't had Canada in their logo since 2005. You wouldn't call the Canadian Cooking Channel, "Cooking Channel Canada." Why is the Canadian Food Network any different? 04:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, closing the discussion as no consensus has been reverted by User:Fishhead2100 who in their explanation take a very narrow view of WP:INVOLVED. I had merely left a procedural comment as the category name should follow the article name and not vice versa. If the name should be changed, it should be discussed elsewhere. That is without having a substantive opinion about the actual name or, more importantly, about the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: You are not an admin. Therefore you shouldn't be closing. If you want to close, request adminship or something similar. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently you disagree with Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions but it is inappropriate to bypass this guideline unilaterally, especially since you are WP:INVOLVED. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: It says it is better left to an admin. If no admin closes a discussion of keep or no consensus, then and only then, as long as you are not involved in the discussion, should you close. You participated in the discussion thus should not close it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So now we are back where we started, about your view of WP:INVOLVED. Imho just leaving a procedural comment is not a sign of involvement unless there is a reason to close the discussion for procedural reasons. But the latter was not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comments: I have been invited to close this discussion. However, I found that the category talk page had no projects listed; I have added two, which may put this nomination onto the projects' Alerts pages and draw more participation. Let's give it another week. It might be that other editors support purging the category down to only the programs made by the channel, rather than broadcast by it; a list of the latter already exists at List of programs broadcast by Food Network Canada.

I believe that the Category:Canadian television series by network hierarchy is intended only for original programming, but perhaps I am confusing it with Category:Television series by studio. The purpose of the network categories is not clear from the name, but if anyone has any better ideas we can only raise them here for preliminary discussion; it would be appropriate to discuss any wider renaming proposals at WikiProject TV. – Fayenatic London 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london:, all the renaming that was suggested was taking "Canada" out of parenthesis and that isn't necessary. I asked you to close because Marcocapelle has been non-admin closing and generally it should be left to admins. He even participated in the discussion. When you've participated in a discussion in some form, you shouldn't close even if it is in good faith. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ I was just pointing out that (i) the current name is ambiguous as to the purpose of the category, but (ii) if any suggestions come up for changing it to a longer unambiguous name, then these should be treated as obiter dicta in this discussion.

As for the conduct of Marcocapelle, I endorse his actions fully. His help in reducing the CFD backlog is much appreciated. It is also entirely acceptable to make comments, especially procedural comments, and later to close the same discussion; I do this too. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A purge to remove shows it simply bought from Food Network US (or other broadcasters) would be appropriate, absolutely — but the Canadian version of Food Network did produce enough of its own unique series (You Gotta Eat Here!, Restaurant Makeover, Chopped Canada, Christine Cushing, forthcoming Iron Chef Canada, Chef in Your Ear, etc.) to justify its own standalone category for them. Years ago when we started categorizing TV shows by network, original practice was that any show ever carried by that network was fair game for the category regardless of whether it was original or acquired programming — consensus only later shifted toward restricting it to the originating network on the grounds that categorizing for foreign or second window rerun carriage led to category bloat. In this particular case, judging by the article histories the category was clean in the past, but sometime last fall an editor who didn't know how these categories actually work apparently went on an "adding non-original programs to the category" bender. But the Canadian version of Food Network did produce a considerable amount of its own original content, so the category is justified and just needs cleanup.
  As for the category's name, it's appropriate and correct as is. The Canadian version of Food Network does not call itself "Food Network Canada", but rather uses the exact same branding as its American cousin — but despite licensing the Food Network brand, the Canadian channel is not simply a copy of the US channel, but airs some FNUS programs and some original productions and some shows purchased from other broadcasters (Cooking Channel, European broadcasters, etc.) that aren't aired on FNUS — so "Canada" is present in the category name (and the article title) as a disambiguator, not as part of the channel's actual name, and thus the parentheses enclosing Canada are correct form.
  I'm performing the purge right now, although I will note that I have already come across some series which were actually Canadian productions that had to be removed from the US category rather than vice versa — so it's worth being aware that the US category is not necessarily fully clean of acquired programming either. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it is purged, and the categories are showing discrete sets of data, then my reason for nominating goes away, so I conditionally withdraw the nomination. --woodensuperman 15:00, 22 June 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) 06:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Governors of Nanyo to Category:Governors of the South Pacific Mandate

Nominator's rationale: In existing WP articles the territory in question is called the South Pacific Mandate, not Nanyo. The choice of name achieved consensus a few years ago at Talk:South Pacific Mandate#Requested move 19 October 2015. This discussion was in response to the South Pacific Mandate article having been boldly moved to Nanyo, from which consensus reverted it. Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition I forgot to mention that Category:Governors of Nanyo is currently a subcategory of Category:South Pacific Mandate and contains the page Governor of the South Pacific Mandate. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:30, 22 May 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 (non-admin closure). Note that the category was empty already. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise people by tribe/caste Sitush (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We do categorize by tribe in the ethnic/national sense (e.g., Category:Navajo people and Category:Ikwerre people), but not by caste. The cat is empty in any event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 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) 06:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Kerman, California to Category:People from Fresno County, California

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a small town with just one person in it. As always, every town does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one person from there with an article to file in it -- people are categorized by county, not by town, until the number of articles is actually high enough to justify a town-specific subcategory. And for added bonus, the one article here fails to even state or source that the subject is from that town, making it technically unverified and removable -- which would have the effect of completely emptying the category. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upmerge per nom. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 21 May 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.