Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 19

: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. ℯxplicit 03:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:HCM Baia Mare players to :Category:CS Minaur Baia Mare (women's handball) players

:Nominator's rationale: The main page HCM Baia Mare was moved by {{user|Smileyboy}} without discussion, and I have made it a disambiguation page between CS Minaur Baia Mare and CS Minaur Baia Mare (women's handball). However, this category currently contains only players for the women's team. – Fayenatic London 18:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment {{ping|Fayenatic london}} Would it not make more sense to rename to :Category:CS Minaur Baia Mare women's handball players? CS Minaur Baia Mare appears to have men's and women's sections in the same sports club, so should be matched with :Category:CS Minaur Baia Mare men's handball players. SFB 02:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• {{hidden ping|Sillyfolkboy}} That form is pleasing to the eye, but in Wikipedia it is standard practice to match categories to the article name, as this is considered to make the category name more predictable. There are four using the form with parentheses in :Category:Handball players in Turkey by club and one in :Category:Handball players in Hungary by club, and I did not see any in the form you suggest. – Fayenatic London 07:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• That makes sense. Support for consistency. SFB 19:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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/merge per WP:G7 and C2E. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:English netball biography stubs and :Category:England netball biography stubs (misnamed version of the former)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Jamaican netball biography stubs

:* Propose deleting :Category:South African netball biography stubs

:* Propose upmerging {{tl|England-netball-bio-stub}} to :Category:English sportspeople stubs and :Category:Netball biography stubs

:* Propose upmerging {{tl|Jamaica-netball-bio-stub}} to :Category:Jamaican sportspeople stubs and :Category:Netball biography stubs

:* Propose upmerging {{tl|SouthAfrica-netball-bio-stub}} to :Category:South African sportspeople stubs and :Category:Netball biography stubs

:Nominator's rationale: I mistakenly created these three new stub templates and related stub categories, while completely forgetting about the new stub proposal process and the minimum 60 article requirement, which none of these stub categories/templates satisfies. I apologise for my mistake, and I hope that this is the best way to rectify it. The proposed category deletions and template upmerges are similar to what happened with {{tl|India-netball-bio-stub}} (see nomination – which ironically I proposed, eight years ago). – Liveste (talk • edits) 17:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy C2E (author's request - with no prejudice against recreation if and when there are 60 stubs - repoint the templates as per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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) 06:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Protostomes of France}}

:Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_27#Category:Moths_of_France DexDor ^(talk) 15:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, highly specialist term. See also, for example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 6#Category:Deuterostomes of Japam. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't seem to need an upmerge. Created by blocked editor. The entire tree :Category:Protostomes by location is equally dubious. Oculi (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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) 06:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Arundell family (English aristocracy) to :Category:Arundell family

:Nominator's rationale: No reason for two categories for one family. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - unlike these next one, these are the same family. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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 the first (there is no consensus on renaming it), and rename :Category:Howard family to :Category:Howard family (Louisiana). – Fayenatic London 09:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Howard family (English aristocracy) to :Category:Howard family

:Nominator's rationale: There is no reason for disambiguation. The category :Category:Howard family is almost empty and it's certain that this family (apparently from Louisiana) is not anywhere near as prominent or notable as the Howard family from Great Britain, that has produced numerous dukes, earls and even a queen (Catherine Howard). —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - these are completely different families. One could perhaps use House of Howard in the name of :Category:Howard family (English aristocracy). The American one certainly needs disambiguation. Oculi (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - bizarre nom. What we should be doing is moving :Category:Howard family to :Category:Howard family (Louisiana) or similar, as clearly the English family is far better known (outside Louisiana I suppose). Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and move/rename cats per Johnbod. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I added a cfr template to :Category:Howard family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Instead rename respectively to :Category:Howard family (aristocracy) and :Category:Howard family (Louisiana) (or such like. :Category:Howard family should be retained as a dab-category. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Recipients of the Order of the Rising Sun, 1st class to :Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Rising Sun

:Nominator's rationale: The 1st-class degree of the Order of the Rising Sun is known as the Grand Cordon. Maintaining both a 1st-class and Grand Cordon category is redundant; a single category would be more complete. HowlingMadHess (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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. I note that although this is part of :Category:Brahmin communities by language, all the sibling categories contain only articles on communities, not individual biographies. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Assamese Brahmins to :Category:Assamese people

:Nominator's rationale: we do not categorize individuals by caste. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom: no, we don't. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC).
• Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Military units and formations of the Waffen-SS to :Category:Units and formations of the Waffen-SS

:Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary qualifier as Wiki does not have a category for "Non-military units and formations of the Waffen-SS" K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The Waffen-SS was a military outfit, so adding "Military" for their units is redundant. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC).
• Procedural oppose The presence of identically named neighbours for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe suggests that if this really is an issue, it doesn't exist solely for this one category, but potentially hundreds of categories in the tree Category:Military units and formations. Rename them all, or none at all, that is now a naming convention works. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

::WP:SOCKSTRIKE; CU-blocked account. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment to {{ping|k.e.coffman|Bishonen}} The :Category:Military units and formations hierarchy mostly uses the word "military"; the exceptions use a more specific term e.g. "Airborne". Therefore, if "military" was not used on a "units and formations" category in this tree, it could ordinarily be speedily added under WP:C2C. If the SS is counted as paramilitary rather than military, this might be a reason to remove the word "military". However, Bishonen's statement that the SS "was a military outfit" seems to be an argument for keeping the word "military" in common with the rest of the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

----

: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.