Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 3

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. I will leave a list of the current contents on the talk page, in case anyone wants to make a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dungeons & Dragons novelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and earlier discussion regarding TV writers by series; suggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unlike actors, these individuals generally had a longer relationship with this medium/fandom. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of Dungeons & Dragons novelists or List of Dungeons & Dragons writers, and delete as performers-by-series overcategorization. Every article I checked identifies Dungeons & Dragons as just one of multiple works with which the person was associated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternatively, merge to Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers if that category is kept below. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting this category, the only parent category left, by which many of these writers can be found, is Category:Living people. Also, D&D franchise is so big, that it might as well be counted as a subgenre of fantasy. CN1 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you please explain what you mean by that? I checked a sample of articles in the category, and each one has multiple categories besides this one and Category:Living people, including categories by occupation, genre, nationality, etc. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I found several person articles that had no other parent categories, but I was actually wrong with wanting to keep the category, a list works better. CN1 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a performer by performance category, which are explicitly depricated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2017 (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. I will leave a list of the current contents on the talk pag e, in case anyone wants to make a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and earlier discussion regarding TV writers by series; suggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unlike actors, these individuals generally had a longer relationship with this medium/fandom. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as performers-by-series overcategorization (perhaps after listifying to List of Dungeons & Dragons writers). Each article identifies Dungeons & Dragons as just one of multiple works with which the person was associated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleting this category, the only parent category left, by which many of these writers can be found, is Category:Living people. Also, D&D franchise is so big, that it might as well be counted as a subgenre of fantasy. CN1 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you please explain what you mean by that? I checked a sample of articles in the category, and each one has multiple categories besides this one and Category:Living people, including categories by occupation, genre, nationality, etc. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I found several person articles that had no other parent categories, but I was actually wrong with wanting to keep the category, a list works better. CN1 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a performer by performance category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2017 (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. I will leave a list of the current contents on the talk pag e, in case anyone wants to make a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dungeons & Dragons artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and to the somewhat analogous earlier discussion regarding TV writers by series; suggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unlike actors, these individuals generally had a longer relationship with this medium/fandom. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of Dungeons & Dragons artists, and delete as performers-by-series overcategorization. Every article I checked identifies Dungeons & Dragons as just one of multiple works with which the person was associated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a performer by performance category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Magic: The Gathering artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and to the somewhat analogous earlier discussion regarding TV writers by seriessuggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unlike actors, these individuals generally had a longer relationship with this medium/fandom. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as performers-by-series overcategorization; a list exists at List of Magic: The Gathering artists. Every article I checked identifies Magic: The Gathering as just one of multiple works with which the person was associated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For many of these artists, making MTG art is not just a part of their "performance": it is a defining aspect of their careers, and even their identity as an artist. For example, Terese Nielsen's website and public Twitter account include almost only MTG content. Her Twitter profile picture is a MTG creature she illustrated. This is also true for Magali Villeneuve, for example. Jason Rainville frequently includes his MTG work on his Twitter profile, and his website specifically has a section dedicated to "cards." The same can be said about many and perhaps even most of the artists on the list. For these reasons, I would argue that being a Magic artist represents more than an aspect of performance for these artists - it often serves as a hallmark of their career. Finally, I would like to note that for many MTG players, the art is a key facet of the game, and one of the primary reasons they play. Their are entire websites and YouTube channels dedicated solely to the appreciation of MTG art. In my view, this allows the category to transcend the performers by performance categorization. For instance, their are not whole communities and YouTube creators dedicated to musicians who can circular breathe, or actresses who have appeared veiled (to use some examples from WP:PERFCAT). Musicians do not tend to dedicate extensive portions of their website to the fact that they can perform circular breathing, or perform left-handed. What I am getting at is that the MTG art community has a significance that exists well beyond the mere actions the artists have performed by creating the art. They often classify themselves as such, and this distinction is important to a sizable subset of Magic players. From my perspective, this more than justifies this category's existence. FindingEllipsoids (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Black Falcon, I also checked a large number of articles, with the same outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a performer by performance category. We do not categorize artists by one specific game they have made art for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2017 (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 by weight of argument. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television occupations to Category:Television people

Nominator's rationale: "Television people" already includes television occupations in its subcategories. Jaqen (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The scope of the two categories is fundamentally different. Category:Television occupations is for articles about occupations; Category:Television people (and its various subcategories by occupation) is for biographical articles about people. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:12, 11 December 2017 (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, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Propose merging Category:Russian gynaecologists to Category:Russian obstetricians and gynaecologists‎

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Rathfelder should refer us to the fate of previous similar proposals such as this one, which was a keep. It doesn't matter that there is an overlap. Category:Obstetricians and Category:Gynaecologists‎ are separate trees and there is no tree Category:Obstetricians and gynaecologists‎ to be subcatted by nationality. (Rathfelder has been at cfd for some time now but has not yet grasped some of the essentials.) Oculi (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_14#Category:Gynaecologists. These categories are woefully underpopulated, rendering "Complete overlap" a weak rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Complete overlap is not meaningful because both suffer from incomplete categorisation. The medical people say these things are difference, and that the overlap is usual but not necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I have been through all the Russian Physician articles and diffused them where possible. Rathfelder (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I see two categories with exactly the same contents and I haven't seen any counter evidence that in Russia these are consistently separate occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Further comment, the previous nomination was closed as keep because there seems to be a clearer distinction in the United States, but that doesn't have to apply to all countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A subcategory may have two parents. Rathfelder (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This probably refers to something different? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Oculi and SmokeyJoe. While Rathfelder has a valid point, that these category trees overlap significantly, they are ultimately distinct and were kept separate just last month. Nominations for individual nationalities are not productive as long as the parent categories are kept separate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont see why we cannot keep the parent categories separate, but combine the child categories where it is appropriate because the practice of obstetrics and gynaecology in some countries is always combined. In others it isn't. Rathfelder (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to evidence that the disciplines of obstetrics and gynaecology are (and were, given this category is not limited just to modern, post-1991 Russia) always combined in Russia? I know that is not exactly what you said, but we should consider the study of obstetrics and gynaecology in addition to their practice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  (indented) I'm afraid my knowledge of Russian medicine is largely restricted to what I've read in these articles. But they all seem to take for granted that obstetrics and gynaecology go together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair, and my knowledge of the topic is even more limited, but I don't think we should selectively intersect (for certain nationalities only) the two category trees on the basis of incomplete information. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not? It seems to me that in many countries, and more especially in modern times, the two go together, but not always and not everywhere. What damage is done by combining some, but not all, of the national categories? As it is we have quite a few countries with a complete overlap. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A handful of articles is not a sound basis for concluding whether or not the two fields "go together"—hence my earlier query about a source. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These two occupations have such high overlap, splitting the categories makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  How to reconcile that, then, with the recent CfD were that very thing (keeping the categories split) happened? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A gynecologist who does not practice obstetrics is pretty notable. They may also specialize in gynecological treatment of cancer, which puts them even further away from obstetrics. Just because they are underpopulated doesn't mean that a merge is necessary. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Practice varies over time and place. In Russia - as far as our articles go - there is a complete overlap. That is not true everywhere.Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Propose merging Category:Russian obstetricians to Category:Russian obstetricians and gynaecologists‎

Nominator's rationale: complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as above. Oculi (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_14#Category:Gynaecologists. These categories are woefully underpopulated, rendering "Complete overlap" a weak rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I see two categories with exactly the same contents and I haven't seen any counter evidence that in Russia these are consistently separate occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "Same contents" is meaningless unless you assume articles are completely categorised. They are separate practices with usually common training. Not sure "consistently separate occupations" is a meaningful query. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Oculi and SmokeyJoe. While Rathfelder has a valid point, that these category trees overlap significantly, they are ultimately distinct and were kept separate just last month. Nominations for individual nationalities are not productive as long as the parent categories are kept separate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as with the other category, this split makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - rationale given above. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:38, 28 December 2017 (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) 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cattle hybrids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete as a useless misnomer. While fleshing out Category:Crossbreeds, I created the (correct) Category:Cattle crossbreeds and started categorizing things into it (for crossbreeds of two or more domestic standardized breeds) and into Category:Bovid hybrids (for types that are a hybrid of domestic and wild [usually bison] stock), and removing incorrect categorization. In the end, nothing was left in "Cattle hybrids" because the name doesn't actually apply to anything. So, accidental depopulation that led to realizing the category shouldn't exist at all.

The only conceivable use for this category would be for varieties that are crosses of Western cattle (Bos primigenius of Europe, Africa, parts of Asia) and zebu cattle (Bos primigenius indicus or Bos indicus, South Asian breeds and landraces that are sometimes classified as a separate subspecies or species). But we're unlikely to ever do that, and we have not been doing it, with even one variety. There were only three varieties in the category at all, and they were two all-Western crossbreeds, now in Category:Cattle crossbreeds, and one that's in that category and in Category:Bovid hybrids because it's a mix of half a dozen domestic breeds plus bison. Category:Cattle breeds is presently not distinguishing between Western and zebu cattle at all, and WP:LIVESTOCK has no apparent interest in doing so, on the basis that our readers generally don't know what the lineage of a breed is – that's information people are generally looking for, not already in possession of).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The category is empty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: If I understand nominator correctly, everything that used to be in this category is now in Category:Cattle crossbreeds. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I think I get it. The nominator appears to know what he’s doing. It looks to me like a Upmeged to Category:Bovid_hybrids? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And side-merged to Category:Cattle crossbreeds. The things that were in the nominated category were a random mixture of both.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Always a pleasure to discover someone's trying to delete a category without any notification whatsoever, of any kind, to the creator – thank you, SMcCandlish! The category was in any case not a large one. It is empty because SMcCandlish has emptied it and moved the previous members to a new category he has created at Category:Cattle crossbreeds. That appears to be a way of of moving it without actually needing to go to the trouble of a move request. We commonly and regularly call the results of cross-breeding between two breeds "hybrids". That is why the common name for Heterosis is "Hybrid vigour" (and not "crossbreed vigour"). I've seen no discussion at WT:LIVESTOCK of whether we should have Category:Indicine cattle, Category:Zebuine cattle, Category:Sanga cattle etc, but it's an interesting idea – the rub is in the actual categorisation, where often there's no clear scientific consensus. Oh, I almost forgot: Oppose deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No shortage whatsoever of usage of the correct and non-ambiguous term: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The fact that some cattle people don't bother distinguishing between all-domestic crossbreeds and domestic–wild hybrids is no reason for Wikipedia to confuse them; we have a responsibility to not do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While it's difficult to evaluate an empty category, it does not appear there is sufficient content to justify a split from Category:Bovid hybrids. Any articles that do not belong in Category:Cattle crossbreeds can be placed directly in Category:Cattle. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 11 December 2017 (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/delete. per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1325 establishments in the Aztec civilization to Category:1325 establishments in North America and Category:14th-century establishments in the Aztec civilization
• Propose merging Category:1370s in the Aztec civilization‎  to Category:1370s in North America and Category:14th century in the Aztec civilization
• Propose merging Category:1376 establishments in the Aztec civilization to Category:1376 establishments in North America and Category:14th-century establishments in the Aztec civilization
• Propose merging Category:1403 establishments in the Aztec civilization to Category:1403 establishments in North America and Category:15th-century establishments in the Aztec civilization
• Propose merging Category:1428 establishments in the Aztec civilization to Category:1428 establishments in North America and Category:15th-century establishments in the Aztec civilization

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. The target in this proposal is mostly a century, but in case of the 1500s, 1510s and 1520s the target is kept at a decade level because this is a period with quite a lot of content about the Aztec civilization. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete but not like this -- I do not think there is much hope of ever getting any sibling content in North America, indeed in America. Therefore the targets should be Category:1325 establishments and Category:Establishments in Aztec civilisation. There is not enough content to have any splits below this. However, if there is really enough for 1500-30, I would be willing to keep the earlier centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peterkingiron: I think you may be right, but this could be handled in a follow-up nomination. The level of upmerging you are suggesting would involve a broader nomination than what is currently tagged as part of this discussion. Would you agree with moving forward as nominated for now, which would still be an incremental improvement over the current situation? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. There is not enough content within this category tree to justify this level of diffusion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Christian biblical canon to Category:Christian Bible

Nominator's rationale: purge and merge, I can't see what should be in Category:Christian biblical canon beyond what is already in subCategory:Development of the Christian biblical canon. The three articles currently in the category belong, and already are, in Category:Bible versions and translations. Just add the subcategory directly to Category:Christian Bible. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Indifferent But posting a point for due diligence that I edited the nomination itself. The question for me is if it has any legitimate potential for growth and I don't have a good answer. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before answering whether there is potential for growth there is the question about what would/should be the scope of the category, if any at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my mind, I guess that there is a difference between the historical steps that lead to the canon and the discussion of the canon in general. So the parent category may contain any articles related to canonization after around the fourth century or so. Again, that content may simply not exist as separate articles here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact the subCategory:Development of the Christian biblical canon already contains a few more recent (16th-century) articles, e.g. Canon of Trent and Luther's canon. Which is fine by me, I don't perceive this as a need to have two separate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; in addition virtually impossible to maintain such a category according to WP:NPOV requirements. Better let it go. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- The three articles are on Bible versions, mostly ancient. The sub-cat will fit well in the parent too. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and per NPOV. But i wonder where that leaves Category:Bible versions and translations which comes close to being a canon category? Also, what on earth is the purpose of this triple connection Category:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name?Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Food for a next nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (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) 07:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Boston Patriots broadcasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:New England Patriots broadcasters. Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree. Thanks PolarYukon (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not necessarily a duplicate. The Patriots were known as the Boston Patriots from 1960 to 1970. This category is for announcers from those years. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- (merge if necessary). This is a renamed franchise. Alumni of merged colleges are deemed to have attended the successor. This should apply to sports teams too. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At Category:National Football League announcers by team. There are seven other instances of team's having multiple categories for different team names. This one category probably shouldn't be singled out. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question: @Hirolovesswords, Peterkingiron, PolarYukon, and WikiOriginal-9: If this category is merged (not deleted, since the membership does not overlap fully), should Category:Boston Patriots (and subcats) be merged to Category:New England Patriots (and subcats)? If the answer is "no", then why should the broadcasters category be treated differently? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there are also other teams categorized like this, as I noted above. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2017 (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 Category:Lizards of South Africa to Category:Lizards of Africa and Category:Reptiles of South Africa;
delete Category:Lizards by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Propose merging Category:Lizards of South Africa to Category:Lizards of Africa (or create Category:Lizards of Sub-Saharan Africa and merge into that)
• Propose deleting Category:Lizards by country

Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. for Nile monitor). Note: The South Africa category is the only country subcat below Category:Lizards of Africa and below Category:Lizards by country. There is List of lizards of South Africa. This could also be upmerged to Category:Reptiles of South Africa (but non-defining still applies). DexDor ^(talk) 06:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – there are lizards for which S Africa is defining, eg Trachylepis capensis. There is Category:Endemic fauna of South Africa which is very large and could be subcatted into eg Category:Endemic reptiles of South Africa. Category:Endemic lizards of South Africa might be viable, given say 6 members (a swift look through List of lizards of South Africa suggests at least 6). I agree entirely that creatures should not be categorised by every country in which they can be found. Oculi (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think Category:Endemic lizards of South Africa is warranted at this time, considering Category:Endemic reptiles of South Africa contains just 22 articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's now 30 (I've moved some down from the fauna category), but I agree that we don't need to subcategorize (and afaics there are currently no endemic-lizards-of-country categories). DexDor ^(talk) 09:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Africa is too big for one category, as it has numerous climatic zones, which are each likely to have indigenous fauna. South Africa (or Southern Africa) is a subcontinent, which is a big enough area. This differs from the view I am taking of European countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you be happy with Sub-Saharan Africa or Southern Africa (e.g. like Category:Birds of Southern Africa)? Note: we should be aiming to categorise here; not attempting to use category tags to describe the distribution of a species - text/map is the way to do that. Do we need regional categorization within Africa (as well as categories such as Category:Geckos of Africa)? DexDor ^(talk) 18:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That region is called Southern Africa. 165.91.13.236 (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Lizards of Africa and Category:Reptiles of South Africa (I agree with User:DexDor that non-defining applies, but that category isn't currently nominated), and delete Category:Lizards by country. Except for endemic fauna, it is counterproductive to categorize fauna by country. While Africa may indeed be large enough for multiple regional categories, that should not hold up this nomination from going forward for now. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Lizards of Africa and Category:Reptiles of South Africa, and delete Category:Lizards by country. I agree with Black Falcon here. Neutrality^talk
• Upmerge to the Africa category. The specific countries of their range are not defining to animals to the extent that putting them in categories for all of them makes any sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:National Lacrosse League season templates to Category:National Lacrosse League season navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: These templates are all navigation boxes and are categorized under NLL nav boxes. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, these are all navboxes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a backlog, but this and the one below seem like a slam dunk. Can someone close these discussions please? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:22, 28 December 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:National Lacrosse League team rosters navigational boxes to Category:National Lacrosse League team rosters templates

Nominator's rationale: These are not navigational boxes. After renaming, move from NLL nav box category to NLL templates category. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and relocate to Category:National Lacrosse League templates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:36, 11 December 2017 (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) 07:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Intersex activists in New Zealand to Category:Intersex rights activists

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by location, as Category:Intersex rights activists isn't large enough as of yet to require subdivision by nationality. It only has 37 entries, and upmerging this isn't even going to make it any larger, since both of the people here are already duplicate-categorized in the parent anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the nom's rationale, but we should upmerge (to both parents: Category:Intersex rights activists and Category:New Zealand activists). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:31, 11 December 2017 (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.