Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 11

: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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Sarah Michelle Gellar}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Only one other article besides main. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:14, 12 March 2019 (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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Gary Cooper}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Only one other article besides main. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:14, 12 March 2019 (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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Kim Basinger}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Minimal content to justify eponymous category. Certainly doesn't add navigation over the main article itself. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:14, 12 March 2019 (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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|John Ritter}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This is basically an empty category. Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Apparently was populated simply with relatives which is overkill for an eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

::Yes, that's right, and per WP:OCEPON, we don't allow any biographical articles except the subject's in eponymous categories. --woodensuperman 16:43, 12 March 2019 (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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Don Murray (actor)}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Basically empty. The subcategory :Category:Images of Don Murray (actor) doesn't need a parent category other than :Category:Images of American people and :Category:Images of actors. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• I have no objection. I just found this in the red wanted categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2019 (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: rename to :Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual men and :Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual women. There is consensus against merger, and for renaming away from the current names. As for using short or long names, opinions are evenly divided, therefore the outcome follows the current naming pattern in the parent hierarchy.

:I will recreate the short (spaced) names as redirects. Note that these were previously merged in 2012. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional transmen to :Category:Fictional trans men

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional transwomen to :Category:Fictional trans women

:Nominator's rationale: The phrases "trans men"/"trans women" are preferred to "transmen"/"transwomen", to to avoid the implication that they are not men or women but something else. Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Seems reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge both to :Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. At ~30 articles in total, there is not enough content to justify splitting the category based on declared gender. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• :Not true. It's far more effective to have it this way. A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. Merging them would do nothing but make navigation harder.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense.}} That's definitely not true. The 5-article threshold is a minimum necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to justify a category's existence. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• :::No one is suggesting that we have a category for trans male characters solely because there are more than five of them, but rather because it would also be useful. This isn't a case of WP:SMALLCAT; there are obviously more of them than this, and the number is already starting to rapidly grow. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• ::::I understand your point, but I don't see the category's usefulness. I agree that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to this category, but my focus continues to be on the necessity and utility of splitting :Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. We can disagree about utility, but with ~30 articles it is definitely not necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• :::::The usefulness comes from the fact that they are distinct groups, because their defining trait is their gender. Someone researching trans characters will almost always consider their gender significant. For example, a trans man looking to identify characters like himself would appreciate not having to click thru a category of mostly off-topic articles to find those. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• :I would argue that breaking the category down by gender is not just acceptable, but valuable, because the category is about gender. The fact that Maura Pfefferman is female isn't an incidental part of the character; it's arguably the main theme of the story she appears in. Further a question such as, "How are trans men handled in fiction?" would be a very likely topic of inquiry, which categories are meant to assist. And there's "optics": Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• ::The handling of transgenderism in fiction would be a meaningful category, but that's not what this is—this is just a bifurcation of transgender characters by their declared gender. I don't disagree that doing this could be acceptable and valuable in principle but for me it's a question of organization, and a 30-member category does not, quite simply, benefit from being split. {{tq|Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case.}} Not so, and I don't think we should let "optics" drive the decision. Someone could potentially infer that, but in my experience people who assume the worst before asking questions tend to do so regardless of how much we try to accommodate them. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rename/Keep Separate The rename seems clearer. I do not infer any bad intent with the suggestion to merge the categories, above. Since what is defining is the identified gender, I think it's defining whether they are trans men or trans women. As more more trans characters are created and our understanding of gender increases, no objection to reviewing how best to categorize these articles to aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Alternate proposal: I to think there is value in keeping these categories separate because their treatments in fiction are likely to reflect their differing treatment/reception in real life. However, neither the current names nor the proposed names are appropriate for Wiki categories.

• :The proper solution is to Rename Both in accord with the overall parent :Category:Transgender and transsexual people and ALL of its other subcats, which yields: :Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual men and :Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual women. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• ::I think it would instead be worthwhile to revisit the 15-year-old decision to use the construct "transgender and transsexual"; "trans" has since come into general use as an inclusive term. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

::::Perhaps so. But that would be a whole other, much larger, CFD discussion. So for now, these categories should just be renamed as I've suggested. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternate proposal as a straightforward case of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternate proposal per Anomalous+0+0 as a straightforward case of WP:C2C. Oppose keep, 2nd preference merge per Black Falcon. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• If the categories are kept separate, then certainly rename per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether they should be kept separate or merged as Black Falcon suggests, and I also would not oppose alternatively renaming them to incorporate the full "transgender or transsexual" phrase, as Anomalous suggests, although I would prefer if all those categories were revisited to use the now-common short form "trans". Mostly I just agree that the current outdated unspaced names should go. -sche (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Rename per nom to use the correct form. Do not merge; gender is the defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Mild support for alternate proposal. I think "transgender and transsexual" is an unnecessarily kludgy and clunky phrase to use in place of the now-mainstream "trans", but it's otherwise unobjectionable, and an improvement over the status quo... as long as separate female/male categories are maintained to reflect the nature of the categories. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2019 (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: Opinion is roughly evenly split. Neither side cited any scholarly evidence, and neither had cited any edge in policy or guideline. And so, after 40 days and forty nights, there didst emerge no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:Anti-pornography movements to :Category:Anti-pornography movement

:Nominator's rationale: This was suggested on the Speedy page, but it did not fit the criteria there. I am inclined to agree with the original nominator that there is an overall anti-pornography movement. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Copy of discussion on Speedy page}}

• :Category:Anti-pornography movements to :Category:Anti-pornography movement – Should be singular, not plural. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• :Category:Anti-abortion movements to :Category:Anti-abortion movement - Should be singular, not plural. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• :@Anomalous+0: For the preceding 2 categories, would the change modify the scope of the category? Is the category about different and unrelated anti-X movements, or about a single or connected movement? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• ::Good question, as :Category:Social movements includes many sub-cats called "X movement" as well as many called "Y movements". The main article for the first one is Opposition to pornography and refers to "Anti-pornography movements", so I do not see a clear speedy rationale for that one. However, the second nomination is valid under WP:C2D, as the lead article is Anti-abortion movement. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• :::Regarding the Anti-pornography category, I think singular is preferable because any "sub-movements" (to coin a phrase) are part of the overall Anti-pornography movement. The mere fact that the article refers to "movements" doesn't mean they should be regarded as separate and distinct from the overall movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• Inclined to keep plural (if there's one movement, why are there so many articles, I ask myself). It seems unlikely to me, given the geographic and time ranges, that half these groups have even heard of the other half. Mary Whitehouse's lot (older British readers will recall it), now rebranded Mediawatch-UK, is not there, nor are a number of older groups, now presumably defunct. Nor is the US National Legion of Decency. As always, people should spend less time worrying about the minutiae of category names, and more about whether they contain the obvious basic contents! You know who you are. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

::Bear in mind, there is a fundamental distinction between movements and organizations. Movements are comprised of organizations along with large numbers of individuals. This is true across the board, regardless of what particular movement you're talking about. In this case, all of those organizations are part of the Anti-pornography movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Johnbod}} - I should have pinged you when I posted my reply to your comment. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not a single movement. For one, anti-porn feminism and anti-porn evangelicalism are quite different. feminist (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Tend to support. The article Anti-pornography movement in the United Kingdom (singular) suggests it is one movement originated from two different perspectives (a feminist and a conservative/religious perspective). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting ping to the participants: {{yo|Fayenatic london|Anomalous+0|Johnbod|Feminist|Marcocapelle|p=}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Alternative It doesn't feel to me that there is a single, worldwide movement, you could add the likes of the Bad Sex in Fiction Award whose position is solely based on literary merit for instance. At the very least, the use of "movement(s)" is debatable and confusing, which suggests to me that it should be avoided. How about {{cl|Anti-pornography campaigns}}? Le Deluge (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

::It's in :Category:Social movements, though I'm not sure it belongs there. I notice a number of other sub-cats of that use the plural. And the Bad Sex in Fiction Award has nothing against well-written sex in books, you'll find. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Anatomy of Social Movements 101" - Elaborating further on what I said above:

:Social movements are large, complex, amorphous, heterogeneous social organisms, comprised of the following elements:

:* Large numbers of Individuals, ranging from sympathizers and occasional volunteers to full-blown activists.

:* An array of Organizations, ranging from small informal groups to large organizations with formal memberships, and also ranging from short-lived ad hoc groups to non-profit organizations with boards of directors.

:* Campaigns - focused efforts undertaken by activists and organizations.

:As I said, social movements are complex, amorphous and heterogeneous -- which means they include a diverse range of people and organizations with differing views on all sorts of things, working toward the same general goal, but not necessarily coordinating with one another in their efforts. The Anti-pornography movement is no exception. Take the issue of anti-porn feminism versus anti-porn evangelicalism: very different people, to be sure, yet part of the same overall movement -- much like Catholic pacifists and Marxist radicals were all part of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

:Lastly, as far as I'm aware, there are no categories for Campaigns; I think I've come across a few articles about campaigns, but as a rule they're just discussed within articles about the organizations that direct them or the movements that spawn them. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

::Just because OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST, doesn't mean it's a flawed idea. However trying to categorise by something that is by your own admission "complex, amorphous, heterogeneous" sounds like the exact opposite of a good Wikipedia category.Le Deluge (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Oh dear, did I offend you? I was merely pointing out that there simply aren't anywhere near enough articles about campaigns to serve as a basis for categorization. If there were enough articles it might make sense. Btw, my remarks about social movements was hardly an "admission" (LOL), just a clear-eyed and knowledgable description, by way of explaining that it's not at all unusual to find different views and tendencies co-existing in the same movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2019 (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 1 / rename 3 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose merging :Category:Royal houses of Norway to :Category:Norwegian royal houses

:* Propose renaming :Category:Royal houses of Denmark to :Category:Danish royal houses

:* Propose renaming :Category:Royal families of Sweden to :Category:Swedish royal houses

:* Propose renaming :Category:Burial sites of Royal families of Sweden to :Category:Burial sites of Swedish royal houses

:Nominator's rationale: more consistent with :Category:Scandinavian royal houses, siblings in :Category:Burial sites of European royal families, and the contents of these categories which use "House" rather than "family" or "dynasty". – Fayenatic London 13:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Copy of discussion on Speedy page}}

• :Category:Burial sites of Royal families of Sweden to :Category:Burial sites of Swedish royal families – WP:C2C: :Category:Burial sites of European royal families. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• : Oppose speedy Subcategory of {{cat|Royal families of Sweden}}. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• ::@Armbrust and Chicbyaccident: That one may need to be renamed to :Category:Swedish royal families, following the mixed convention of :Category:European royal families and :Category:Scandinavian royal houses. I've inquired about the terminology at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Royal house or family?. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• Oppose - more people will find these categories more quickly if their names begin with "Royal families of ...". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support, only for consistency reasons. The form "Royal houses of Norway" is actually more to the point than "Norwegian royal houses" which may imply "Royal houses from Norway", so a wider nomination with a reverse rename would be appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging the participants to see if they have anything to add to help reach a consensus: {{yo|Fayenatic london|Chicbyaccident|Armbrust|Black Falcon|SergeWoodzing|Marcocapelle|p=}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I still believe my nomination would be the most helpful option, as it would be most consistent with parents, siblings and sub-categories. To help people looking for "Royal families of…", we can add redirects from those names. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - User:Westfield2015 who created all but one of these is a sock of User:Pastorwayne, the legendary creator of bizarre categories (see :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne, several of which include Westfield). Amusingly Westfield2015 seems to have created both :Category:Royal houses of Norway and  :Category:Norwegian royal houses on the same day. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2019 (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: rename :Category:Right-Wing Militia to :Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:Right-Wing Militia to :Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States

:Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following suggestion at Speedy page, matching article Militia organizations in the United States. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Copy of discussion on Speedy page}}

• :Category:Right-Wing Militia to :Category:Right-wing militias – Correct capitalization & pluralize. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• :I think this category needs more than just technical fixes. For example, it is not clear from either name that the category is specific to the United States. :Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States might be better, but I am not sure if that is clear-cut enough for speedy renaming. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• Alt Rename/Support I would favor :Category:Militia organizations in the United States to match the main article (Militia organizations in the United States). The proposal is better than the current article name so would also favor the proposal above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the original suggestion seems better. Note there is also :Category:Left-wing militant groups in the United States. In true US style, these articles are not tied in the the international tree very well. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting comment. {{yo|Fayenatic london|Anomalous+0|Black Falcon|RevelationDirect|Johnbod}} none of you likes the current title. Can you reach a consensus on which of the suggested alternatives would be better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

::I don't see any objections so far to ":Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States" - Anomalous+0 hasn't commented on it, but everyone else seems ok with it, as I am. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This is, usefully, part of several "Right-wing" parent hierarchies. Just because there is no lead article specific to right-wing hierarchies does not mean it should be named in such a way that should take it out of those parents. By all means create an additional parent :Category:Militia organizations in the United States to hold both left and right, if that would aid navigation. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

:: While not my first choice, the proposed rename is still much better than the current category name that doesn't mention a country. Mild Support for the nom. (Note this is my second/clarifying vote.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• rename per nom as a better alternative. Separately, the article should be similarly renamed as it only discusses right wing militias in the US Hmains (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2019 (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: rename :Category:Caucus to :Category:Caucuses in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:Caucus to :Category:United States presidential caucuses

:Nominator's rationale: The current name is excessively vague; the category contains articles about caucuses used in selecting US presidential candidates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm wondering if your proposal would work better as a sub-category under :Category:Caucus since a minority of the current won't belong in the new category. Specifically, Boston Caucus isn't presidential, Caucus and Caucus chair are not American-specific. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rename to {{cl|United States caucuses}} - firstly it's distinctly about the US, and not about caucases in other parts of the world, and secondly, it should use the plural. If you want an overall parent, then it should be {{cl|Caucuses}}, but I dpn't see it as being particularly vital. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rename to {{cl|United States caucuses}} (or similar) per Grutness. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Caucuses in the United States. Better grammatically. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

:::Or that. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting question: there seems to be a consensus to rename to either {{cl|United States caucuses}} or :Category:Caucuses in the United States.

:{{yo|Power~enwiki|Grutness|RevelationDirect}} please can you clarify which you prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

::My suggestion was simply following the name in the original proposal. Perhaps the other option, ({{cl|Caucuses in the United States}}) would be preferable, however, given that we already have {{cl|Caucuses of the United States Congress}}. Grutness...wha? 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

: I prefer :Category:Caucuses in the United States, but am not going to bother checking if there's policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Rename with preference for :Category:Caucuses in the United States but no objection to :Category:United States caucuses if it achieves consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• rename to :Category:Caucuses in the United States as this pertains to their geographic location not the polity involved. Hmains (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• rename to :Category:Caucuses in the United States. Also note that caucus and caucus chair should be removed from the category. Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• REname one way or the other. Prefer :Category:Caucuses in the United States. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2019 (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 to :Category:Schools affiliated with the Arya Samaj. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{lc|List of DAV schools in India}}

:Nominator's rationale: New category created by editor with competency issues. It is nothing more than an uncategorised list with no links in the categorisation tree and I'm not sure what to do with it. With this editor, deletion is the normal direction we've been heading but if somebody can work out what to do with it... AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SHAREDNAME, and all these schools are already in :Category:Schools affiliated with the Arya Samaj. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2019 (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, with selected upmerging per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

-----

:* Propose Deleting :Category:Amazon oil

::* Propose Selectively Upmerging Açaí oil & Ucuhuba seed oil to :Category:Cooking oils

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCLOCATION

:This category groups both plant articles are that are indigenous to the Amazon rainforest if they can produce cooking oil and actual cooking oil articles if they are made from plants from the Amazon. (Some of these are endemic and grew naturally only in the Amazon basin while others had a broader distribution in the Americas.) The plant articles are already well categorized under the :Category:Flora of Brazil tee and I added the the cooking oil articles to the :Category:Crops originating from South America tree. I can't picture a Wikipedia reader that wants to know crops from the Amazon but only if they are cooking oils (or vice versa). Alternatively, if kept, we should rename to make it clear it is not petroleum related. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

:*I agree with both the proposed deletion and the upmerging based on the rationale given. "Amazon oil" is more of a marketing term than anything else anyway. Deli nk (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2019 (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. If anyone wants to make a list, the 4 pages currently in the category are: Carlsberg Architectural Prize, Tadao Ando, Juha Leiviskä, Peter Zumthor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

----

:* Propose Deleting/Listifying :Category:Recipients of the Carlsberg Architectural Prize

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

:This was a short-lived Danish architectural award given out 3 times between 1992-1998. All three of the recipients are non-Danish (Tadao Ando, Juha Leiviskä, Peter Zumthor) and were already prominent before receiving the award so it's mentioned only in passing in each article along with other honors. Since the award is discontinued, there is no room for growth nor any likelihood that its prestige will increase with time. The recipients are already listified here within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - we have the list already. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Listify then delete -- as usual for OCAWARD. Lists do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2019 (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.