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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting
  • Category:WikiProject Film articles with Rotten Tomatoes links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:WikiProject Film articles with Metacritic links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:WikiProject Albums articles with Metacritic links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to WhatLinksHere and hastemplate search. Nardog (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categories don't need to be created for pages that transclude a template. Seeing as how there isn't an additional maintenance function to these, there is no use for them. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1910s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1920s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1930s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1940s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1950s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1960s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1970s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1980s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-1990s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-2000s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Template:Aero-2010s-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Some of these categories are smaller than the recommended minimum size of 60 articles, and it is unnecessary to divide aircraft by decade because, in the words of WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_14#RfC:_What_should_be_the_minimum_size?, There is nothing about aircraft from different decades that would make someone interested in 1950s aircraft be uninterested in stubs about 1960s aircraft. Not every large stub category needs to be subdivided. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging these to a "by century" scheme. There is an average of about 50 stubs per category right now, and perhaps around 10% of them aren't actually stubs any longer. I think that merging them will turn out to be perfectly functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1910s to 1940s are reasonably full, so I am neutral about those. The others can certainly be merged. Merging to a century level does not make sense however, as there are very few aircraft articles before 1900 anyway. Just merging to "Aircrafts" will do the job. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have you notified the aviation project of these proposed deletions? They are sorted into decades because the aircraft articles are sorted into decades by first flight date. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Nimbus227. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yes we do have a need for consistent logic in how the aircraft articles are sorted and they are by decade. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those above. When working from a specific source covering the particular era, these categories can be very useful in identifying articles to cross-check against the source. It is in the nature of aviation history that such period-focused sources are quite common. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steelpillow, an article like Beecraft Queen Bee is already categorized in Category:1960s United States civil utility aircraft and Category:Aircraft first flown in 1960. Are you saying that, even though it's already in two categories by date, it still needs to be in a third decade-based category, Category:1960s aircraft stubs? The first two content categories just aren't enough for this purpose? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: This discussion is proposing to delete templates, not the categories themselves. The templates are easy ways to add the appropriate decade-related category to the stub. If you want to propose deleting the categories, that should be a separate discussion. But while they exist, the templates should too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may answer, the 'aircraft first flown' and manufacturer/type/configuration categories are logical non-diffusing categories where the categories populated by using the template are Wikipedia editing notices, quite different. If these templates were deleted or hidden editors would not know that articles need expansion/improving unless they have navigation pop-ups enabled (showing the assessment class from the talk page on the article page). Typical workflow is to choose a stub category and improve the articles using a source or sources that focuses on the period. All a completely normal and constructive process that would be made very difficult by removal of these categories. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Stub, The more accurately an article is tagged, however, the less work it is for other sorters later, and the more useful it is for editors looking for articles to expand. That's a much more concise version of my thoughts. It also says there If an article overlaps several stub categories, more than one template may be used, but it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used. A limit of three or, if really necessary, four stub templates is advised. In this nomination templates that are the sole stub templates used in an article are being proposed for deletion to achieve zero stub templates in an article where up to four are allowed (but not ideal). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has proposed inaccurately tagging any stubs. Editors propose only not bothering with being as precise about which stubs are in which decade. The proposal is to use the existing accurate ((Aero-stub)) tag instead of the precise-plus-accurate ((Aero-1960s-stub)) tag.

@Steelpillow says that we need to keep ((Aero-1960s-stub)) because it puts Beecraft Queen Bee into Category:1960s aircraft stubs, which is allegedly "very useful in identifying articles to cross-check against the source". I still question whether we need the stub tag+category to achieve these goal, and why the other, permanent, non-stub categories are not equally "very useful in identifying articles to cross-check against the source". If the main reason to keep this precise, narrow stub tag is because the stub tag adds a category that duplicates information already presented in the regular content categories, then I am unconvinced by this reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Please stop pinging me over your irrelevant and ill-informed nonsense. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested in understanding why you believe that we need a stub tag that does nothing more than duplicate information available elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another way to explain this would be: Beecraft Queen Bee probably isn't a stub. What do you lose when ((Aero-1960s-stub)) gets removed from it? If the answer is "nothing", then we probably don't need ((Aero-1960s-stub)) to be there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal as I understand it is to delete all the listed stub tags/categories and replace them with one 'by century' tag/category. As the majority of aviation history happened in the 20th century that would place the great majority of aircraft stubs in to the same pot, not desirable at all. There is already a generic aircraft type category at Category:Stub-Class aircraft articles which is driven by the article assessment on the talk page, it currently has 1,555 members which would indicate the size of a new 'century' stub template driven category. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A large problem with this nomination is the assumption that the numbers in each category are correct, articles only appear in these categories if they have been tagged with a template. There are 100 plus stub aircraft articles that have not been given a decade template. It is clear that that a great many aircraft stub articles have not been tagged at all, it is also clear that many articles are no longer stubs but are still tagged or incorrectly assessed on the talk page as stubs (or both). There are many aircraft articles that have been assessed incorrectly (too high a class), this is also distorting the true situation. Even with 100% certainty that all articles have been correctly assessed and tagged there appears to be no concern over under-populated categories at the stub sorting project (can not find the 'recommended 60' lower limit) but there is rightly mention of large categories (indicating diffusion is needed).

Stub tagging/removal and article assessment require experience and confidence, many (most?) aviation editors don't involve themselves in this activity. There was a project competition a long time ago that awarded points for article assessment and tagging, the situation would have improved at that time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually found the figure of 60 being used in the deletion rationale, it is the recommended minimum number of articles for creation of new stub categories, not a number to be used when existing categories fall below that value (or in CfD discussions). In any case it is a WikiProject recommendation, not a policy. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:25, 4 May 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures associated with the Benzon family to Category:Buildings and structures owned by the Benzon family

Nominator's rationale: rename, avoiding weasel language. Alternatively perhaps delete as a sort of WP:PERFCAT: categorizing buildings and estates by past owners might eventually lead to an overload of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I strongly disagree. The parent category of this category is Category:Buildings and structures by association. As for deleting the category (categoryies), I think they are very useful for families of notorious landowners of historic estates that often remained in the same family for many genegations. These categories are the easiest way of getting an overview of what other estates members of the same family owned, what town mansions they owned etc. I only use these categories for such families and only for properties with strong associations to the family (typically because it was owned by the family for several generations, that the main building was constructed for a member of the family). ;pmi,emts and memorials commemorating family members do also fit into these categories but would not do so if they were renmaed "owned by".Ramblersen2 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The parent category is not appropriate either, see WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not appropriate to rename this category to deviate from the conventions of its parent. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Defunct LGBT nightclubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. The subcategory has sufficiently been parented, a merge is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think this category should be populated, not deleted. Surely there are other notable defunct LGBT nightclubs outside the United States to include. Ultimately, we might also have additional subcategory for other nations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside the US there are very few former nightclubs in Wikipedia and not many LGBT nightclubs either, while this is an intersection of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was originally nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Category:Defunct LGBT nightclubs, so you've had almost three months to populate it but nothing has happened. Let's stop the wishful thinking. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the onus on anyone to populate the category ASAP? I don't think so. Surely there are other notable defunct LGBT nightclubs to include in the category, not to mention the possibility of many future entries. Seems silly to delete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't anyone's onus to populate indeed, but it is everyone's onus to check rather than to guess. By checking the other categories in this tree it becomes obvious that other notable defunct LGBT nightclubs aren't so surely at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be a loss for Wikipedia to delete this category. Keeping this category is important for people to find LGBTQ nightclubs which are no longer around, especially important for those who want to learn about LGBTQ history.--Historyday01 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nightclubs have a high prevalence in LGBTQ+ historical work. Many key historical events involving LGBTQ+ people and issues are have nightclubs as a special context. The ′defunct′ category helps separate out those clubs that not longer exist and are relevant purely for their historical value. Given the short lifespan of many Queer nightclubs, and the number of short lived temporary events termed ′Nightclubs′ this is a category with a lot of potential for population with significant historical events. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep categories don’t have to be populated with 200,000 pages the moment they’re created, especially if they’re clearly encyclopedic. Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick pass through some of the LGBT nightclub by country categories uncovers several articles about LGBT nightclubs outside the US. Politanvm ^talk 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Defunct LGBT+ clubs is a notable topic itself. In the anti-gay era clubs got closed for being gay and that is the topic of documentation; in the AIDS era clubs got closed on public health arguments; in contemporary times there are projects like the Lesbian Bar Project which note that there are about ~20 lesbian bars in the United States, when previously there were hundreds, and when there about 1000 gay bars for men. Defunct LGBT+ clubs are easy to document! Bluerasberry (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I sympathize with the sentiment, but Category:Defunct LGBT nightclubs in the United States has not been nominated anyway, this will not be impacted by this nomination. The issue here is that there are hardly any articles outside the US. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: But there are some articles, and there could be more. Where would you escalate the articles in this category? The category currently marked as higher level, "drinking establishments" is an error - many LGBT+ nightclubs are either in countries without drinking culture, or because they are LGBT+ they cannot get alcohol licenses, or while there are few straight clubs without drinking it is much more common everywhere to have gay clubs without drinking. Nightclub does not merge well into drinking establishments for LGBT+ places. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bluerasberry: you are right that the current terminology in the category tree is confusing, something like "Category:LGBT bars and clubs" would reflect common language a lot better. But better leave that to a different discussion, this one has become too messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now populated. Nardog (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw after the above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sportspeople by city or town in the Netherlands to Category:Sportspeople by populated place in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Per the rename of Category:People by populated place in the Netherlands, it looks like a lot of these aren't cities or towns. --Ferien (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment About a third of the sub-cats of Category:Sportspeople by country and city are in the format of "Sportspeople by city or town in the..." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a few subcats of the nominated category are based on regional municipalities, not populated places, e.g. Noordoostpolder and Oost Gelre. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Burial sites of noble families of the Crusader states

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging somewhere is not necessary, the subcategory is already in Category:Burial sites of French noble families. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, it seems Crusader states exists. And as a sort of parallel example, Category:Noble families of the Holy Roman Empire exists. Looking at House of Lusignan, I'm actually kind of leaning toward keep in this case. Merely categorising under France, seems inappropriate in this case. - jc37 04:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Persibom Bolaang Mongondow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer with just the main article and a subcategory. (We should of course keep the subcategory if that was not clear.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added some relevant pages to the category. GiantSnowman 15:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Only the stadium article, apparently. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and club crest... GiantSnowman 19:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no longer redundant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting or renaming Category:Films about trans women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm new to wikipedia so i don't full understand categories but, for one, i was interested in denoting on Category:Films about trans women which films had Trans Women characters that were actually acted by Trans Women. I was also interested in writing more information about trans women characters in cinema. I realized i can't do either since its a category. Another thing that bothers me is that most of the films in this category are not actually ~about Trans Women~ they just feature a Trans Woman character. I would definitely defer to people who understand how wikipedia is styled and organized, but I believe the category should be changed to a list page (?) or at least renamed to "Films Featuring Trans Women Characters" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ts4ts4ever (talk • contribs)

• Purge if needed, presumably at least some of the 171 articles are about films about trans women. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am not familiar with this category, but the creation of a list (as Ts4ts4ever suggests) does not require the deletion of a category. Dimadick (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Renameper nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This is clearly a notable topic. What its scope should be is something I should leave others to decide. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- No policy based reason given for deletion and category is certainly notable. Also this category does not prevent ts4tsever from making a list article. Rab V (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The issue described by the proposer is solved by removing certain articles from the category, not by deleting or renaming it. Nardog (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Community (TV series) episode redirects to lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The redirects in this category do not redirect to lists but to actual articles on these episodes with only capitalization or disambiguation differences. Since all episodes for the series have an article, this category is unnecessary. This is some recent precedent at CfD when Category:Homeland episode redirects to lists was deleted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Well, I should have probably bolded by response there. Even Armbrust was not against keeping the category. The fact that these categories (all episode redirect categories) are named "to lists" is a sad fact, because neither the template ((R from television episode)) nor the parent category Category:Redirects from episodes care what the target is, which is not a mistake. The R template is in use for tagging episode title redirects. If they are to a list then Template:R to list entry should also be used. If they are to an anchor then Template:R to anchor should be used. If they are an alternative spelling of a title (or any variation of "alt") then tag accordingly but without the list or anchor. As long as we have the redirects, then they should be categorized accordingly. Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unlike articles, redirects do not always have to be categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Aren't they of utter utility? Wikipedia is for normal users (not just for the pedants among us). For usability reasons to be kept. --Just N. (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what you mean. It sounds like you're arguing to keep the redirects, which are not up for deletion. How is this category that is "redirects to lists" useful for episodes that have their own articles already? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unclear what the beneift of categorizing these two redireects is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given at Category:Homeland episode redirects to lists. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 13 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Reality television participants to Category:Reality television contestants
• Propose renaming Category:Reality television series contestants by genre to Category:Reality television contestants by genre
• Propose renaming Category:Lists of reality show participants to Category:Lists of reality television contestants
• Propose renaming Category:Reality modeling competition participants to Category:Reality modeling competition contestants
• Propose renaming Category:Figure skating reality television participants to Category:Figure skating reality television contestants
• Propose renaming Category:Battle of the Blades participants to Category:Battle of the Blades contestants

Nominator's rationale: Rename to "contestants". This name would follow most of the sub-cats by series, and clarify the role as opposed to e.g. hosts/judges. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This was raised at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Category:Participants in British reality television series but needed a group nomination; now see also the nomination below. Pinging previous participants Lil-unique1, Peterkingiron, Just N., Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, much clearer description. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this is much clearer ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming to contestants - A contestant is a participant in a game show or contest (which redirects to competition). Not all of these appear to be competition-based. Reality television would appear to be much broader than that. Maybe the whole tree could use better specification in naming? - jc37 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In practice nearly every reality tv show is somewhat competition-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not according to Reality_television#Subgenres. - jc37 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (already voted) At least with the last three categories it is obvious that it is based on a competition. With the three first categories the large amount of shows is competition-based too, but not necessarily all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Reality television participants & Lists of reality show participants. Shows like Kardashian, The Real World, Real Housewives and many others aren't competitions at all with no contestants. Reality show competitions are a large part of Reality TV, but not all of it. The shows like Survivor or Top chef that are competitions already have their categories as contestants, where do The Real World or Housewives cast members go if the highest level is changed to contestants. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:32, 13 May 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 05:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Monoclinic crystal system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A merge is not needed, the article Monoclinic crystal system is already in Category:Crystal systems. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Triclinic crystal system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. A merge is not needed, the article is already in Category:Crystal systems. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined two related noms. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- We are unlikely to get articles other than the eponymous main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The thought when making these categories was that categorizing chemicals by structure would give hundreds of additional articles that fall under monoclinic/triclinic crystal systems. If we're concerned these categories are nearly empty, I'd be happy to start adding them: monoclinic (Arsenic trisulfide, Arsenic triselenide, Arsenic(III) telluride, Lead(II) chromate, Bismuth(III) oxide, etc.) triclinic (Bismuth(III) nitrate, Rhenium disulfide, Dicalcium phosphate, etc.). There are only seven crystal systems, so having the full list pretty logical. The categories at Category:cubic crystal system are more developed, I expect monoclinic/triclinic will end up looking similar eventually.

At first glance it seems like the articles I mention above should be under the "minerals" sub-categories, but we somehow have separate containers for geological minerals and synthetic chemicals. This division is debatable, but if the implication is that we should merge the two categories together, that also seems to imply renaming the minerals sub-categories to broaden their scope. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 20:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Given CfDs (unfortunate) high backlog in closing discussions, the time this discussion is open will be sufficient for anyone who wishes to populate the category to do so. Thus, if these categories are still underpopulated when this discussion is closed they should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (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: Move: to Category:Local government areas of the Republic of Ireland Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Local administrative units of the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is now outdated, as the LAUs are now the local electoral areas, which do not have their own separate pages. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:Former local administrative units of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP comment: @Laurel Lodged: What about Category:Local government areas of the Republic of Ireland? It keeps the grouping and category, but uses a definition currently in law. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A further observation: Category:Local government areas of the Republic of Ireland would probably always have been a better name for this category. In all other cases at Category:LAU 1 statistical regions of the European Union, the sub-category was based on the local administrative name for the areas or units, rather than classing them at this level by their NUTS level. So it makes sense to categorise them by what they are in Irish law, i.e., local government areas. Laurel Lodged, do you have any closing thoughts on this? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename Changing my vote per Iveagh Gardens comments to Category:Local government areas of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LAU 1 statistical regions of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As of 2016, there is a single level only of LAU units in the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics system. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely overlaps with the countries' administrative divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and renameto Category:Former LAU 1 statistical regions of the European Union. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP comment: I’d query the significance of a former classification, such that it’s worth maintaining a category. What encyclopaedic benefit does it bring? These categories were superseded by the Category:LAU statistical regions of the European Union. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Changing my vote per Iveagh Gardens comments. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2022 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LAU 2 statistical regions of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As of 2016, there is a single category of LAU units in the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics system. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely overlaps with the countries' administrative divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Former LAU 2 statistical regions of the European Union. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP comment: I’d query the significance of a former classification, such that it’s worth maintaining a category. What encyclopaedic benefit does it bring? These categories were superseded by the Category:LAU statistical regions of the European Union. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Changing my vote per Iveagh Gardens comments. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2022 (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) 05:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Countries that are enclaves of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is of little use. It's very small, it has only two pages, both of these pages are linked to in the lead of the Italy article, and likewise these pages also link to Italy in the lead and mention Italy extensively in their body. Векочел (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Category:Enclaved countries contains both of them. I would argue that the latter also ought to include Monaco, though it has a coast as well as a border with France. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2022 (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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 05:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Afghanistan to Category:Drinking establishments in Asia and Category:Companies of Afghanistan
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Austria to Category:Drinking establishments in Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Austria
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Belgium to Category:Drinking establishments in Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Belgium
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Cuba to Category:Drinking establishments in North America and Category:Food and drink companies of Cuba
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in the Czech Republic to Category:Drinking establishments in Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of the Czech Republic
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Denmark to Category:Drinking establishments in Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Denmark
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Finland to Category:Drinking establishments in Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Finland
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in India to Category:Drinking establishments in Asia and Category:Food and drink companies of India
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Italy to Category:Drinking establishments in Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Italy
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Japan to Category:Drinking establishments in Asia and Category:Food and drink companies of Japan
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Morocco to Category:Drinking establishments in Africa and Category:Food and drink companies of Morocco
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Lagos to Category:Drinking establishments in Africa, Category:Food and drink companies of Nigeria and Category:Companies based in Lagos
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Switzerland to Category:Drinking establishments in Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Switzerland
• Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments in Thailand to Category:Drinking establishments in Asia and Category:Food and drink companies of Thailand

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently one or two articles in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as proposed. It's far from granted that members of these categories are incorporated companies. Also, for a business so ubiquitous it hardly seems that "no potential for growth" would apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• These are small companies (whether incorporated or not), and while there are many small companies in the world the chance for any individual small company to become notable isn't very big. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upmerge to "Drinking establishments in CONTINENT, oppose merge to "Food and drink companies". I think SMALLCAT applies here, but a drinking establishment and a food/drink company are two different things. bibliomaniac15 05:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Bibliomaniac15 solution (upmerge), per WP:SMALLCAT. "Food and drink company" is a much broader term - jc37 23:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, fair enough not to merge to "Food and drink companies of country" but then at least merge to "Companies of country". The articles should not disappear from the Companies by country tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support most drkinking establishments are not notable, so I think we are safe to upmerge for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have consensus to upmerge to "Drinking establishments in [continent]", but a bit more discussion about whether to also merge to "Companies of [country]" (as suggested by Marco at 11:47 on 3 Apr.) would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to "Food and drink companies of country"; arguments that they are different things are undercut by the fact that Category:Drinking establishments by country is a subcategory of Category:Food and drink companies by country and has been since 2008. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see no value in this whatsoever. These are not food and drink companies (and shouldn't be part of that category in the first place) and it makes no sense to mess with a category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not becoming a mess, witg this proposal all drinking establishments will remain part of the tree of Category:Drinking establishments. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2022 (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) 05:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who read Archie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Malformed duplicate of Category:Wikipedians who read Archie Comics. A merge is not needed since neither member has edited in years. I have serious doubts over the purpose of the entire Category:Wikipedians who read comic books tree, but that aside we shouldn't have duplicates. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. and share your reservations about that category tree. There are much better names to choose for collaboration-oriented categories. VegaDark (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2022 (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) 05:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pages using infobox song with deprecated parameters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is no longer needed, since it has been removed from the template per this discussion. All of the deprecated parameters have been eliminated from the template and all article-space transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as ((db-templatecat)) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 14 April 2022 (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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Geoparks in Great Britain to Category:Geoparks in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: per comments below. A redundant layer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a trivial intersection, geoparks need not to be diffused by islands. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and upmerge in all subcats. The whole UK tree has just 10 articles and I suspect there are few if any missing articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And created by a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 19 April 2022 (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:Populated places in the Israeli security zone 1985–2000. – Fayenatic London 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Israeli security zone 1985-2000 to Category:South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)

Nominator's rationale: I have no strong opinions on this one, I just figured that it could do with some discussion since being created a month ago. It's intended for places in the parts of Lebanon occupied by Israel in 1985-2000 - is this defining, does it need a rename to make this more explicit, or should just the ones that took a notable part in the occupation be merged into the wider "conflict" category? I have no real opinion other than the current name doesn't quite work. Le Deluge (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I set up this category because I needed to identify villages which were actually within the security zone and essentially under Israeli occupation. The conflict category is much wider and covers villages which had quite different experiences.Padres Hana (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept rename to Category:Villages in the Israeli security zone 1985-2000 Category:Populated places in the Israeli security zone 1985-2000 per actual content. But I doubt if this is a defining characteristic of these villages at all. Hence deletion possibly after listification is also an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I edited the rename target after Peterkingiron's comment below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REanme to Category:Populated places in the Israeli security zone 1985-2000. We moved away from splitting into towns and villages some years ago, due to the problem of defining their respective scopes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While agreeing that it could have a different name, looking at the content of South Lebanon Conflict it clearly has a completely different content. The two categories do not sit well together. Padres Hana (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Persians in South Asia to Category:South Asian people, Category:Asian people of Iranian descent, Category:Persian people

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article, Persians in the Mughal Empire. Note: I removed another article, a biography, which was better categorised in Category:Pakistani people of Iranian descent. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If the category is not deleted, Parsis, Nawayath and perhaps others might usefully be added to it. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2022 (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) 05:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:User R-proglang to Category:User r

Nominator's rationale: More redundant user categories. I boldly redirected a similarly redundant set of userboxes, which mostly depopulated this tree, but this one category is populated directly by a few user pages so needs a separate discussion to tidy it up. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All of the four User R-proglang child categories have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I emptied all four of the subcategories by redirecting duplicate userboxes. The base category still has members and thus needs a CfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it occurs to me that the entire programming language userbox fluency tree should add something like "proglang" to their names, to distinguish them from the natural language tree -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally if I were renaming this entire tree I would abolish the whole babel-esque naming covnention and rename to something like "Wikipedians who can program in <language>". That aside, we definitely don't need both categories, and omiting "proglang" is the current convention so the merge should be done this way, while any future grand designs are left to separate discussions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:50, 17 April 2022 (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 all remaining Timrollpickering (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:People from Baborów to Category:People from Głubczyce County
• Category:People from Barczewo to Category:People from Olsztyn County
• Category:People from Biała Piska to Category:People from Pisz County
• Category:People from Biecz to Category:People from Gorlice County
• Category:People from Bieruń to Category:People from Bieruń-Lędziny County
• Category:People from Bircza to Category:People from Przemyśl County
• Category:People from Błaszki to Category:People from Sieradz County
• Category:People from Bobolice to Category:People from Koszalin County

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles in every of these categories. (The category pages have not been tagged yet.) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tagged all category pages with AWB per request. Bsoyka (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection -- The consensus is that 5 articles is normally the minimum. Below that we merge or upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Is the consensus of minumun 5 articles for such categories officially somewhere in our guidelines?--Darwinek (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, the Category:People from Sokółka has 5 pages, please exclude it from the nomination.--Darwinek (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, I have struck this one and will untag the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these can be expanded by checking "what links here". I've started with categories of 3+ from the bottom, and Category:People from Żarów, Category:People from Twardogóra and Category:People from Szamocin now each have five members. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Can you remove these three categories from the nomination as well? Thanks. --Darwinek (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I will just entirely remove them from the nomination rather than strike them, that will probably help the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2022 (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) 06:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mavin Records songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: XYZ songs is a non-existent category scheme, songs are either issued as singles or on albums, both of which have a category scheme. There is no benefit to creating another layer of songs by record label. Richhoncho (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Labels don't release songs, they release recordings of the songs as singles and/or on albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:12, 14 April 2022 (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.