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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Republic of China at the Summer Olympics to Category:Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. This is the only content that is specifically related to the Republic of China before and after 1949. All other sport content is either in Category:Sport in China or Category:Sport in Taiwan. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Well-populated, part of the established series Category:Nations at the Summer Olympics.
  The history of Republic of China is unusual: it lost 99% of its territory, but still exists, and still claims that the 99% is de jure part of its territory. That inevitably makes for some unusual categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, I accidentally nominated the subcategory (which is well populated indeed) instead of Category:Republic of China at the Olympics. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (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: disperse. ✗plicit 14:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Canadian genealogy websites to Category:Genealogy websites
• Propose merging Category:Icelandic genealogy websites to Category:Genealogy websites
• Propose merging Category:Irish genealogy websites to Category:Genealogy websites
• Propose merging Category:Israeli genealogy websites to Category:Genealogy websites
• Propose merging Category:Portuguese genealogy websites to Category:Genealogy websites
• Propose merging Category:Ukrainian genealogy websites to Category:Genealogy websites

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. These categories only contain one or two websites a piece, and I don't see the need to categorise websites by nationality when the head category contains only five entries. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I was about to say "dual merge, also to websites by country categories" but most articles are not clearly about websites. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually disperse between Category:Genealogy databases, Category:Genealogical societies and Category:Genealogy websites dependent on what the article is really about. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually disperse per Marcocapelle, also adding to appropriate national categories e.g. organisations if not already categorised by country. – Fayenatic London 20:46, 26 December 2021 (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 but create redirect at the target name.– Fayenatic London 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Deaths in mental institutions to Category:Deaths in psychiatric hospitals

Nominator's rationale: Do we still call them mental institutions? Mental institutions redirects to the Psychiatric hospital article, which seems more appropriate. Cnbrb (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a trivial intersection. The place of death is unrelated to the cause of death in the majority of cases. If the category is kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Historical figures may well have died in "mental institutions"; there were no such things as "psychiatric hospitals" until the 20th century. A single category name will have to be a compromise between historical accuracy and modern sensibility? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Psychiatric hospitals are far too recent a concept to have a sizeable population of related articles. Dimadick (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, while that redirect is appropriate because its what most people mean now, not every antecedent of psych hospitals could be described as anything approaching a hospital. As demonstrated by the very much separate article for lunatic asylum. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2021 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Noir by nationality to Category:Noir writers by nationality

Nominator's rationale: To match its parent category, Category:Noir writers. Isabelle ^🔔 16:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename per nom for consistency and specificity. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - appears to be a mistake, judging from the subcats. Oculi (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, judging by the subcats, this is just about speediable. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Medalists in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to Category:Medalists in Brazilian jiu-jitsu

Nominator's rationale: It should be lower case per MOS:SPORTCAPS just like the other Category:Sports medalists thank you. Lewolka (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu (WP:C2C) and Brazilian jiu-jitsu (WP:C2D). Oculi (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:08, 17 November 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 07:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mexico City Grand Prix to Category:Mexican Grand Prix

Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate of Category:Mexican Grand Prix. As they are considered the same event - and have the same main page - they must be included in the same category. Otherwise we have a situation where the category space considers them seperate events but the article space doesn't. SSSB (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although they may be "considered the same event" by some people, but this is by no means a well-established consensus. Quite contrary to your rationale, the change of name in itself is a clear enough indication that these are different events. E.g., there have been multiple instances in the past whereas differently titled Grands Prix were run on the same track: Imola, Nurburgring, and most recently Baku immediately come to mind. So there is nothing new about things like this - and about such events being considered differently titled (e.g. in Baku it was European Grand Prix one year, and then Azerbaijan Grand Prix the very next year). So there is no clear indication this is just a cosmetic change (what would that distinction be anyway, and why the Europe->Azerbaijan change be held to a different standard than the Mexico->Mexico City one?). Hence, the different titles. The article space may eventually catch up - the event is too fresh to be reflected in any established consensus to have already formed. cherkash (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am perfectly aware of all those examples - but for those cases there was a clear consensus that they different events. Here there is currently an (albeit limited) consensus in the opposite direction (a consenus based on reliable sources at the time, indicating a similar approach as was used when "Malaysian Grand Prix" became "Malaysia Grand Prix"). You should wait for a "well-established consensus" (which I am more than happy to discuss). Not ignore the consensus that exists by creating a confusing disparity between the category and mainspace (which is disrputive, whether it was intentionally so, or not). SSSB (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - they are not duplicates at all. Category:Mexican Grand Prix covers the 39 years when it was the Mexican Grand Prix, with appropriately titled articles (eg 2019 Mexican Grand Prix), whereas Category:Mexico City Grand Prix covers yesterday's race (2021 Mexico City Grand Prix). The connection between the 2 categories is neatly encapsulated by the former being a subcat of the latter. (The usual convention is to rename the article to the current name, not as yet done in this case.) Oculi (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Even a cursory glance shows that the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, Reuters, Autosport, Motor Sport magazine, and The Race are all continuing to refer to the event as the "Mexican Grand Prix" and not as the "Mexico City Grand Prix". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per HumanBodyPiloter5 and SSSB, they are considered the same events by every outlet I've encountered over the last race weekend. This should be treated as a title change, not a new event. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge same event even if the official branding (Mexico City not Mexican) is different. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2021 (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. It's possible that this could be created as a container for specific community colleges, but as it stands the main consensus is to delete. bibliomaniac15 20:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Community college alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too broad a classification to be useful. There are surely thousands of articles that could fit here; and they are already classified under categories such as Category:Kirkwood Community College alumni. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力, the reason I created it was because I couldn't find a cat for alumni of Frontier Community College. Is it better to create categories for alumni of each individual community college, even if those categories have only a single entry? —valereee (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is that we should make a category for each community college; even if there is only one entry there are enough graduates it is likely to grow. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力, cool with me! No objection to deleting this cat as long as no one will object to a cat with a single entry. —valereee (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename to Category:Community colleges alumni or something similar, unless something similar exists, and use as a container category for all the subcats of the many individual Community College alumni subcats. However, it should contain subcats only, and no individual articles. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible consensus will support creating a new tree of "Community college alumni by US state" container categories, but I do not. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful scheme to have all community college alumni under one container as a differentiation, because these usually offer two year degrees or vocational training programs. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We allow alumni categories for individual colleges, universities and high (secondary) schools. We might have a category such as this as a container, but the scope is vague: my nephew and niece attended community colleges (in England), which were merely their local high schools. We do not categorise by shared name. Everyone goes to school, meaning that a category for (any) school alumnus/a would be useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron and per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. With a few schools having attended it may be a defining characteristic but in most cases it is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kangaroo Jack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains three items: two articles, and a redirect to one of the articles. Trivialist (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:42, 16 November 2021 (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.