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:Nutrition guides. There's a clear consensus to rename, and while there isn't a strong consensus to a specific target, "Nutrition guides" has the most support due to the main article at List of nutrition guides. Any future discussions about a better name should probably play out over WP:RM for that article. bibliomaniac15 19:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nutritional advice to Category:Nutrition guidelines [or Category:Dietary guidelines - see below]

Nominator's rationale: The term "Nutritional advice" is a little too fuzzy to serve as a category name, whereas "Nutrition [or dietary] guidelines" captures the actual content of this category with real clarity. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there is an article List of nutrition guides, which might suggest Category:Nutrition guides as the best category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I took a look at Google Scholar, and the term "Nutrition guides" hardly shows up at all there, whereas "Nutrition guidelines" gets tens of 1000s of hits. [But wait, there's more.] While I was at it, I also checked on the term "Dietary guidelines" - and discovered that it gets even more hits than "Nutrition guidelines". So I guess Category:Dietary guidelines should get serious consideration as well. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to Category:Nutrition guidelines maybe. Although I'd say that's a very small advantage in wording. The US and Australia seem to like 'Dietary' as I chequed but I'd suppose it to sound narrow as a notion/wording. --Just N. (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Nutrition guides. Orientls (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So far this is not leading somewhere. It might be better if someone starts an RM for List of nutrition guides, thereafter the category can follow speedily. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 12 September 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 to Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (United Kingdom). Taking into account the consensus for the UK disambiguator, as well as the convention to use the full name in categories. bibliomaniac15 19:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to Category:Nationally significant infrastructure projects in England and Wales

Nominator's rationale: Reason 1 - change case - no need for caps. Reason 2 - Wikipedia is global, these are projects in England and Wales. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree regarding the scope, but the caps is based on the Government's official naming, rather than an arbitrary Wikipedia editor of 'big'. FDent (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I assumed this was subjective but it's an official government label, but I'm not convinced it's a defining label. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree - UK government civil servants are as lax as many Wikipedia editors in their capital letter fetish. As with, for example Police and crime commissioner which is used with and without caps all over the place, there is no compelling reason for capitalisation of every word. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Support adding England and Wales, but Keep capitalisation. This is for projects so designated by a government agency. Without capitals this becomes a POV category depending on the editor's opinion of it. It should be Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (England). Despite how it is parented, all the projects are in England; I suspect that is because Welsh ones would be under the developed administration of Wales, perhaps with a Welsh name. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I've taken advice from a senior civil servant in the Planning Inspectorate. Although most of the projects are in England the scope is not limited to England. Some big projects in Wales, Scotland and NI are included, though the rules for them are different. and they are sufficiently significant that we could expect articles about them.Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Peterkingiron's logic above, keep the capitalization but specify what country or countries are involved. As a non UK person I never would have guessed based on the category name that it's their term. Dan Carkner (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the United Kingdom? Rathfelder (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• How about Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (UK) as slightly briefer. I was wrong in saying that Wales was not included. UK is in fact redundant, but useful to prevent it picking up non-UK content by mistake. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Parentheses may be standard, but full names are used in categories, so is there support for Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (United Kingdom)? – Fayenatic London 19:40, 6 September 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) 05:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Balto (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Expansion very unlikely. It looks as if the two articles are already in the parent categories so no need for a merge. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Even if the 3rd movie were restored to standalone article status, it would probably fall under WP:SMALLCAT with not much potential for expansion unless the series were somehow rebooted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. I'm sure there were promotional toys and coloring books and happy meals too, but this 'franchise' doesn't warrant a category. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Orientls (talk) 17:49, 9 September 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: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deans of law schools in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A subcat of Category:Law school deans where the rest of the subcats are for prominent law schools rather than based on nationalities of the Deans. I added some of the pages that were under this category under Category:Indian legal scholars because it didn't make sense to have two categories that had a majority of pages in both categories prior to my edits. The legal scholars category is essentially the same. Also, the user who created this category has been blocked indefinitely. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Indian legal scholars. The definition in the headnote fails to limit it to people who hold the appointment of Dean, which I understand to be the head of a division of a university, more senior and more wide-ranging than a professor who is head of a department. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Question - Is a dean a scholar? - jc37 13:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They can be, but we have two categories with the same purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging is not needed, the articles are already in Category:Indian legal scholars if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, then yours is a delete vote. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I think it can be kept or deleted, just not merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to be deleted because it's redundant to the already superseding category. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: No, it is not redundant. See my !vote below: you misread the category's title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Law school deans. bibliomaniac15 19:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category has the definition "In India there are notable persons who have contributed in establishment of new law schools and administration of legal education". This does appear to match or justify inclusion in Category:Law school deans, described as "the highest administrative officers in any of the roughly 200 American and Canadian law schools." Perhaps user:BrownHairedGirl may wish to comment, as the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_6#Category:Deans_of_Indian_Law_Schools records that she added six members here. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic: that cat definition is obviously silly (because it's too broad), and should be replaced with something like "the highest administrative officer in any Indian law school." I don't recall exactly how I populated the category, but it was from people already categorised in Category:Law school deans. See e.g. these two additions: [1], [2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination is based on a misreading of the category's title. It is based on the location of the law school, and not as WikiCleanerMan claims based on nationalities of the Deans. Since those deans are not necessarily Indian, @Peterkingiron's suggestion of a merge to Category:Indian legal scholars would be wrong.

The parent Category:Law school deans is getting large, and could use more sub-categories, both by-school, and by-country-where-the-school is. Deleting this category would be a step backwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 3 September 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) 06:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional sealed locations to Category:Fictional locations

Nominator's rationale: Whether a location is "sealed" or not seems like an arbitrary thing to base a category on, and there are hardly any category members that are actual locations. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even the entries that are actually about locations are all over the place — i.e., it is unclear what the category is supposed to be about. As Category:Fictional locations is a container category, entries should be reloacted to other subcategories, where applicable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of these articles do not cover locations at all. Dimadick (talk) 21:02, 9 September 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 to Category:Cabinda independence movement. bibliomaniac15 19:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Politics of Cabinda to Category:Independence movement in Cabinda

Nominator's rationale: rename, this is neither about the politics of the Republic of Cabinda nor strictly speaking about the politics of the Province of Cabinda. The proposed name probably covers the content of the category best. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Cabinda independence movement to match most other subcategories of Category:Independence movements. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is perfectly fine with me too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 5 September 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) 11:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to correspond with correct naming convention for college sports teams. Verification of Lions nickname found in this Daily Press article from 2006. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Frederick College athletes → Category:Frederick Lions athletes
• Category:Frederick College football → Category:Frederick Lions football
• Category:Frederick College football players → Category:Frederick Lions football players
• Support. Orientls (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 10 September 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.