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

The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople from Smithtown, New York to Category:People from Smithtown, New York

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now contains 12 articles. Perhaps seeing whether it could be populated first might have been a better idea? Grutness...wha? 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• With 12 articles, this must now be a keep, but even if removed it should have been upmerged also to Sportspeople from New York (state). If that is not necessary because all the articles are already there, the nom should say so. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2019 (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. MER-C 09:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:History of Gymnastics to Category:History of gymnastics

Nominator's rationale: Upper case G inappropriate. Other sports history categories use lower case for name of sport (e.g., History of association football‎). No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This ought to have been suggested at the CFD last year. – Fayenatic London 07:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, however the scope of the category seems a little unsure of itself. Due to WP:COPSEP, the people should not be included, which doesn't really leave much. Maybe a delete would be more appropriate? --woodensuperman 12:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WikiProject Gymnastics has been notified of this discussion.
• WP:WikiProject History has been notified of this discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: purge per WP:PERFCAT. MER-C 11:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This is pretty much a WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 12:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Purge, this is only defining for the three founders. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also some topic articles in this category, per comment below, so I changed 'support' to 'purge' (remove the performers). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose if you eliminate the performers there are still a lot of articles in this category. It is just not being used correctly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 13 July 2019 (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. MER-C 09:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:US city of residence user templates to Category:US city user templates
• Propose merging Category:US city of origin user templates to Category:US city user templates

Nominator's rationale: merge, the content of the two categories is largely overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: this will also help with WP:WPUBX#Merge. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It makes sense to merge these two categories they are so similiar.Catfurball (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Category:Location user templates overhaul. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2019 (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 too specifick and spammy with it — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lion Safari in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too specific also created by sock. Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2019 (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. MER-C 09:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sports in Hingham, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category that only contains 2 redirected articles. TM 12:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, could be merged to Category:Sports in Greater Boston though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment stricken after further discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without merger, as the target article does not explain Hingham Harbormen/women, except that the infobox mentions harbormen under "mascot". I have, however, added the target school into Category:Hingham, Massachusetts. – Fayenatic London 07:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fayenatic. Nothing really in this category. Also suggest looking at the equally pointless Category:Sports in Brookline, Massachusetts. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 7 July 2019 (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 Category:Place of residence user templates to Category:City user templates. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Residence user templates to Category:Place of residence user templates

Nominator's rationale:  

1. The difference between two categories is too small.
2. Make it similar to sister Category:Place of origin user templates, for which there is no Category:Origin user templates

—⁠andrybak (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative: rename Category:Place of residence user templates to Category:City user templates, then the difference becomes a lot clearer. The parent category also contains regional and country user templates. I have tagged Category:Place of residence user templates for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: basically, I'm trying to reach a middle ground between the two extreme options outlined at the idea lab. I try to do it gradually. Another step is harmonizing cities user templates categories (one, two, and three). I'm planning to describe the middle ground later at the idea lab discussion as time permits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Category:Place of residence user templates should be renamed to Category:City user templates, this would make it clear to people what this category is for.Catfurball (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle and Catfurball, what do you think of Category:Place of origin user templates? Maybe there ought to be a much wider discussion? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would certainly remove the words "origin" and "residence" from these category names, since the templates do not contain those words either. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: what do you mean by remove the words "origin" and "residence"? Are you suggesting we merge the two category trees (Category:Residence user templates and Category:Place of origin user templates? This does however, put in question whole Category:Location user templates subtree in question—but this should be a separate discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• About the templates do not contain those words either: the template names do not contain the words "origin" and "residence", but texts of userboxes do have "hails from", "was born in", "lives in", and other relevant phrases relating to a place being a place of origin or residence. Some templates, however, are either worded ambigously or allow customization of the verb phrase, and thus are placed in both categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the whole distinction between origin and residence is redundant and confusing. Wp editors will use city templates when the city applies to them, regardless origin, having lived there or still living there. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrybak: Category:Place of origin user templates is very confusing to me, it needs to be cleaned up by someone somehow.Catfurball (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Place of residence user templates to Category:City user templates. The current names are highly confusing. While the categories require some cleanup I don't believe a merge would be necessary since a city category is an aproporiate way to categorize all these userboxes. --Trialpears (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Category:Location user templates overhaul. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pings: Marcocapelle, Catfurball. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: that was archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 29#Category:Location user templates overhaul. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 18 September 2019 (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. MER-C 09:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Transfeminine male actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific. Very few actors specifically identify as transfeminie male. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT rename to Category:Male actors who self identify as transfeminine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with nom but merge to Category:Transgender and transsexual male actors. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2019 (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. MER-C 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jewel (singer) to Category:Works by Jewel (singer)

Nominator's rationale: All of these articles relate to her works, therefore this should be in the "Works by..." category tree. Per WP:OCEPON, we shouldn't have eponymous categories unless multiple other articles exist. --woodensuperman 09:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - standard for 'musicians' categories. I would again urge Woodensuperman to bring bundled nominations to cfd or present some overall scheme, as it will take decades to rename these one by one. There are 462 in Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musicians alone. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the fact that the musicians tree is not following the guideline is no rationale for keep. The guideline WP:OCEPON is quite clear, and the "overall scheme" is the "Works by..." category tree. --woodensuperman 10:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The musicians tree was there long before the 'works' tree. Oculi (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By 'overall scheme' I meant - what is your overall vision for this? If it is to replace all eponymous musicians categories with something then what? If it is to replace 'low hanging fruit' then nominate say 100 of them fitting the same criteria (see eg BHG's strategy against portals). AS it is you are bringing random ones piecemeal and it wastes a lot of time. Oculi (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a musician has multiple works categories, there should be a "Works by" category. Sometimes it would be appropriate for a higher level eponymous category, but per WP:OCEPON, this would be rare: "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". See Category:Works by filmmaker as a parallel to see how this should work. --woodensuperman 10:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until one or more of her books has an article and thus creates a parallel level of works in a different field to justify. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works do not need to be in separate fields to justify a works category. See Category:Works by filmmaker, Category:Works by writer, etc, etc. There is nothing to justify an eponymous category, that is the more serious issue per WP:OCEPON. --woodensuperman 07:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, there is no objective reason to restrict the Works tree to cases of different fields; cases of different categories should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as there is zero justification for an eponymous category here. – Fayenatic London 07:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename WP:OCEPON is quite clear in this case and I found no reason to deviate from the guideline in the keep arguments. --Trialpears (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2019 (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. MER-C 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON, not enough articles that can't be grouped under Category:Works by Sara Bareilles. --woodensuperman 09:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I added a couple that are legit. Not sure if it warrants keeping since most of the subcategories are now adequately categorized themselves. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those were legit. The 72nd Tony Awards failed WP:PERFCAT and the other failed WP:OCEPON (we do not categorize people by other people). --woodensuperman 10:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is disruptive to bring these 1 by 1 to cfd. There is a 'tours' subcat which is not under works, and 'songs recorded by' are not 'works' (created by others). 'Works' is Category:Creative works if one looks higher up. Oculi (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Songs recorded by" are most definitely works by an artist, and even if you don't consider a tour to be a work, we do not need an eponymous category for these two subcats. --woodensuperman 10:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the songs, and about the tours. Oculi (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, the two subcategories can be interlinked in the headnote. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now The bigger question here is whether a concert tour should be categorized as a work. If it should then this should obviously be converted to a single category. I think it should be categorized as such but if we're only going to recategorize this one concert tour that would be undesirable for consistency reasons. I would happily support a larger discussion on this topic though. --Trialpears (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2019 (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. Followup left to subsequent nominations. MER-C 09:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:JVP insurrections in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. The other subcats of Category:War in popular culture all have substantial content, but this one stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb, with zero articles and only a single subcat, Category:JVP insurrections in film. After deletion, that category should be placed directly in the two Insurrection parent cats of Category:JVP insurrections in popular culture. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- What is JVP? This seems to be an orphaned tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite orphaned, it is in the tree of Category:Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna. If kept, one might argue that it needs to be renamed to Category:Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna insurrections in popular culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt merge to Category:Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna and nominate the subcategory for rename to Category:Films about Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna since the films are not clearly about any of the two insurrections in particular. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm allright with pretty much any solution, as long as this category goes away. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2019 (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 Category:Prince-bishops of Poland, merge the two others. MER-C 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Prince-bishops of Poland to Category:Prince-bishops
• Propose merging Category:Prince-bishops of Spain to Category:Prince-bishops
• Propose merging Category:Prince-bishops of the Low Countries to Category:Prince-bishops

Nominator's rationale: Merge, unncessary category layer with only one or two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Query I think that there may be an anomaly in the Polish case. Was there really a Prince - bishopric of Kracow? From what I saw, there was an ecclesiastical title of Bishop of Kracow and a civil title of Duchy of Siewierz. I don't see anything that links the two other than the person of the bishop who held both titles. Indeed the duchy itself was purchased, not awarded by the Emperor. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a very fair point, leading to an alternative proposal to simply delete the Polish category. As nominator, I am supporting the alternative as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Spanish and Low Countries, delite Polish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (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) 07:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial, non-defining category prone to detritus. Open-ended category would logically include a bazillion comics creators. While many writers illustrate their own work, no one from Dr. Seuss to Clive Barker is commonly categorized as such outside of navel-gazing Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Per the discussions from the previous two nominations for deletion, which ended in clear consensus to keep. It's been several years, but has the category somehow become more trivial? I think this is clearly still a defining characteristic of William Blake and Mervyn Peake. A category being large is not a criterion for deletion. LeSnail (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per previous unanimous 'keeps' in 2010 and 2007. Oculi (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Lesnail's argument. Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. There aren't many comics people here, & ideally they should be in a sub-cat - doesn't a comics one exist? Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be rather unusual. In comic books, typically one person serves as the writer and provides the Script (comics), another serves as the main comics artist/penciller and provides the illustrations, a third one serves as the inker who retraces and finalizes the drawings, a fourth one is the colorist who adds colors to the black-and-white works of the penciller and inker, and a fifth one serves as letterer responsible for the speech balloons. Most writers don't contribute to the artwork of a story, and most artists don't contribute to the script. The exceptions include people who filled more than one role in the production process, such as Carl Barks (both wrote and illustrated most of his stories from 1943 to 1966, wrote stories for other artists during his semi-retirement), Jack Kirby (mostly credited as a penciller from the 1930s to the 1960s, started both writing and illustrating his own stories in the 1970s), Bill Everett (mostly wrote and illustrated his own stories from the 1930s to the 1950s, mainly credited as a writer in the 1960s), and Steve Ditko (mostly credited as a penciller in his hired work for various publishing houses, writer for some of his more "personal" works such as Mr. A). Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2019 (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.