Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13

: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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Entertainment company founders to :Category:Mass media company founders

:* Propose merging :Category:American entertainment company founders to :Category:American mass media company founders

:Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories, and is pretty vaguely defined Mason (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• We have :Category:Entertainment industry and :Category:Entertainment companies too. Should they disappear as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• :I think that for company founders we can and have gotten more specific, so it isn't really helpful to have individuals in this category. Mason (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 13 March 2024 (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: split to :Category:Jews and Judaism templates and :Category:Jews and Judaism stub templates. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Judaism templates to :Category:Jews and Judaism templates

:Nominator's rationale: They are so similar categories. I think they should be merged. MRTFR55 (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

::Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• I have populated it somewhat with more rabbi stub templates that were previously not in these categories. More synagogue templates could be moved down, and "Judaic" and "org" templates moved up; but there are other templates where the distinction would be less useful. Instead, Split to :Category:Jews and Judaism templates and :Category:Jews and Judaism stub templates. – Fayenatic London 18:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Fair enough, so first merge, then make a new split. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 13 March 2024 (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 Danish category (as the rationale for deletion has been rebutted and it is WP:NOTAVOTE); merge the Swiss categories as nominated with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:16th-century Swiss lawyers to :Category:16th-century lawyers and :Category:16th-century Swiss people and :Category:Swiss lawyers

:* Propose merging :Category:16th-century Swiss educators to :Category:16th-century educators and :Category:16th-century Swiss people and :Category:Swiss educators

:* Propose merging :Category:16th-century Danish educators to :Category:16th-century Danish people and :Category:16th-century educators and :Category:Danish educators

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one person in each of these, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I have added some more pages and there is plenty of potential for further growth.Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• :@Ramblersen2 Potential for growth is not a criteria for keeping a category anymore, and you only added people to the danish educators category. Most of whom do not have educator as a defining characteristic. I implore you to populate the categories you make as you make them. Mason (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• ::All the people I added have served as professors and/or rector at the University of Copenhagen. As for populating categories as I make them, I generally really try to do so. But when moving categories to more specific ones by century, it seems natural to make them all at once (the ones that make sense) and it is difficult to do everything at once (and if they are not all created at once the argument for deleting them seems to be that they atre isolated). And looking at :Category:16th-century educators, I would like to point out that none of the national subcategories seem to have been populated properly, in spite of the fact that they are all older than the Danish one. That is not to say that categories shouldn't be populated as they are createdm of course they should, but just that other people seem to have the same same approach as I have had. And for some reason, you don't seem to have a similar problem with all these categories.Ramblersen2 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• :::@Ramblersen2 "And for some reason, you don't seem to have a similar problem with all these categories" that's not accurate. I do have a problem with them, and request that other people do the same. But I've happened to be talking to you, so you see me pointing it out to you. And, I've run into your categories often enough that its worth mentioning. I agree that it's difficult to do everything at once. But if you slow down and do them in smaller batches, you'll have a good case for keeping the category. Especially if there's a parent category, like Xth-century occupation. Mason (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• :::*Okay. I will take more care from now on when creating new categories. That "potential for future growth" is not a relevant criteria for what categories to create was new to me (based on what I have seen others do and what I believe I have been told).Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• :::**Ramblersen2, WP:SMALLCAT was (fairly) recently deprecated. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• It appears that the nomination of the Danish category is meanwhile moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

::Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 05:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Works about taxi drivers to :Category:Works about taxis

:Nominator's rationale: When would an article be about one but not the other? Fuddle (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

::Slight Lean oppose/comment: taxis are cars, while taxi drivers are about people/occupation. Mason (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not the same thing. Taxis are cars. Drivers are people.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• :Yes, I understand they are different. I'm questioning the distinction. Is Caddyshack about golf, golfers, golf clubs and golf courses, for example? Fuddle (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Another idea: Merge :Category:Works about taxis to :Category:Works about taxi drivers. Taxi Driver is about the person, not the car.
• Merge or reverse merge, the two categories are not different enough from each other. I have a weak preference for a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: I've tagged the target category to allow for discussion of a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 13 March 2024 (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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Advocates of women's reproductive rights to :Category:Reproductive rights activists

:Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• They are not activists though, they are rather professionally involved in women's reproductive rights. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I checked several of the included articles. Mostly members of activist organizations, or participants in international projects concerning the topic. Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• {{yo|Marcocapelle}} which members of the category are professionally involved in women's reproductive rights? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Of the first five articles, only Carter isn't clearly professionally involved. But she is primarily a writer about the topic, so I'd say that "advocate" fits better than "activists". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 13 March 2024 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Auschwitz boxers to :Category:Boxers (sport)

:Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection. It's interesting, but should be a list, in connection with the movie Triumph of the Spirit Mason (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Deletion may be needed, but the specific articles should go to categories by nationality. :Category:Boxers (sport) can't include every boxer from every era. Dimadick (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• If not kept, then delete instead of merge. The articles are already in :Category:Polish male boxers etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• :Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Listify per nom, do not merge per Marco. {{yo|Marcocapelle|Omnis Scientia}} Mason suggested listifying, and I agree it would make an interesting list. Do you have any objections to listification? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Two of them are already in the "see also" section of the film article, the other four can easily be added there. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

::It would a short list. I agree with Marco on this one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

:I am okay with deletion, as well. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 05:30, 21 March 2024 (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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:People with type 1 diabetes to :Category:People with diabetes

:Nominator's rationale: I think this category should be renamed to fit notable people with diabetes in general, not just people with type 1. It would also match :Category:Deaths from diabetes and the parent category :Category:Diabetes. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Frankly I am hesitant about this. Type 2 is too common to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• :Support: I'm hesitant for practical reasons (per Marco), as this could pretty quickly get overrun (and will need purging). However, per EGRS this is defining as there is A LOT OF literature on people with this condition. Mason (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• :* We do not have to categorize people by every medical condition there is literature on. It should still be limited to WP:DEFINING conditions. E.g. we do not have categories for people with high blood pressure or high cholesterol either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This simply requires the creation of a parent category, instead of a change in scope. Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• :@Dimadick, can you clarify please? Not sure what you mean here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• One category for type 1, a parent category that includes people with other types of diabetes. Dimadick (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Should we rename and repurpose this category, or create a parent category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• I am equally hesitant about a parent category as I am about renaming. There hasn't been a rebuttal to the comparison of type 2 diabetes with high cholesterol or high blood pressure. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment a reparented general diabetes category could then include any women in pregnancy who had gestational diabetes... is that a significant condition to be categorized by? (which is neither Type 1 nor Type 2) If not, how would such a parent category be strucutred to avoid this? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 13 March 2024 (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: talkpagefy. Numerically this is a wash, but all but one editor commenting suggests that moving to the talk page is an acceptable compromise. I will list this as WP:CFDWM, and leave a note at WT:COUNCIL and WT:TFD (because this is really more of a matter for the WikiProject/template gurus than the CfD regulars). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related 19th century articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related 20th century articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related 21st century articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related Americana articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related articles by importance}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related Book of Mormon articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related folklore articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related music articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related photography articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related rare books articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related University Archives articles}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Harold B. Lee Library-related articles by quality}}

:Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a (hidden) category in mainspace which is of interest to the library / Brigham Young University, but has no importance for Wikipedia and its maintenance. It (and its subcategories) include things like His Girl Friday, where the only connection to the Library seems to be in the "Further reading" section, which has a ""Collection on His Girl Friday, 1940". BYU Library Special Collections."[http://archives.lib.byu.edu/repositories/14/archival_objects/123795], consisting of "two lobby card digital prints and two one-sheet poster reproductions", i.e. nothing original or special.

Or Charity bazaar, where the cat was added in 2021[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charity_bazaar&diff=1034929940&oldid=1034414393] without any obvious relation to the article. Same for Ida, Countess von Hahn-Hahn, no idea why the category is there, no idea what "maintenance" any Wikipedia editor is supposed to do with this category.

One can also find it at e.g. Conservation and restoration of books, manuscripts, documents, and ephemera, where probably the library has some info, just like hundreds of other similar libraries. Why this one is especially selected to have a maintenance category is unclear.

No idea as well why Lloyd Alexander and his The Black Cauldron (novel) and The Book of Three are in this category.

Perhaps it can become a Wikiproject and be tagged on relevant talk pages, considering that the category is part of :Category:Articles by WikiProject which is a container of talk page categories, not a mainspace category. Better still probably is a task force of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, as the vast majority of articles in the maintenance category are related to the Mormons. This seems to the be the original intention as well, as it says "This category contains pages that Rachel Helps (BYU) and her student editors have worked on as part of their work for the Harold B. Lee Library.", which is for all similar projects (e.g. WikiEdu) done at the article talk pages (where it usually serves no purpose at all and just clutters the page, but that's a different discussion). Fram (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:Note: this is supposed to be a nom for :Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related articles and all its subcats, apparently I was on a subpage instead of the mainpage, and contrary to AfD one can't simply copy the nom to the other pages. Fram (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

::Procedural comment: I have tagged all of the categories using User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFD. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:::And I have listed them in this nomination. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks, both of you! Fram (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

::: We have not tagged or listed the sub-cats of {{c|Harold B. Lee Library-related articles by importance}} or {{c|Harold B. Lee Library-related articles by quality‎}}, but they can be deleted under WP:G6 if this nomination is approved.

:Support deletion or wikiprojectification per nom. Seems to be serving as a pseudocatalogue of the library itself, which is not how categories should work. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

:Oppose Hi, sorry for my tardy response, I've been sick. Please don't delete these hidden maintenance categories. I use them to track pages that I and my students have edited as part of our paid work editing Wikipedia for the Harold B. Lee Library. They are convenient for both other Wikipedians and myself. Other Wikipedians can use them to see what pages I and my team have edited when there are questions about the nature of our contributions (i.e., if they want to review our edits for potential violations of NPOV). I use the categories to report on pageview statistics in my annual reports to the administrators who employ me. All the pages that seem unrelated are pages we have edited extensively. We have archival collections for Lloyd Alexander. I can explain our work on other pages if you would like more information. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

::Any reason why a tag on the talk page, instead of the article itself, isn't sufficient? As far as I can tell, every single similar project uses either talk page tags or nothing at all (you can check :Category:Articles by WikiProject to see how other projects do this). They are not pages that require specific maintenance, and we don't indicate any other contributors or contributing institutions in article categories (and non-paid contributors also don't get the privilege of a talk page banner remembering their input for ever and all to see). It's e.g. very nice that you and a student or colleague edited Sophie Albrecht and were paid to do so, but why should that require a hidden maintenance tag afterwards? Fram (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:::When I tag the article itself, I can use the [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/ massviews analysis] to give me pageviews that I believe are more accurate than what is available from the [https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ Outreach dashboard]. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

::::Using categories for your personal (or even project) pleasure is hardly a reason to do this. If I would like to tag all the articles I created or expanded in this way for this reason, with a category tree structure to my liking, I doubt it would last for very long. Fram (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

::::Plus, this works just as well if you tag the talk pages instead of the articles, you just have to check the "Use subject page instead of talk page" box on that tool in that case. Fram (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::I wouldn't say it's for my personal pleasure. It's for the convenience of the community and my job. Analytics I receive from the maintenance categories help justify the library continuing my position. That is a more complicated situation than my preference. Is there a policy or guideline about how maintenance categories may or may not be used that we could refer to? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::I'd be fine with moving these categories to the talk page--is there an automated tool for doing so? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

:Tentative Oppose. Notified of this discussion via my talk, also noting that Rachel would be unlikely to canvass me. I am no expert in category policy, but if the categories are helpful to Rachel and her students, and as she points out, arguably also helpful for other editors who are interested in ensuring their paid work is being appropriately scrutinized, I guess I kind of feel like this is a situation where IAR should come into play. These categories don't affect readers and to me really don't seem to have other downsides. If someone can explain what harm the categories are causing, I'm willing to be persuaded. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

::They pollute the already often overcrowded hidden categories, they don't clearly indicate that the edits were paid (and have often been added years after the edits were made anyway), they don't follow the pattern used by any other such position or system (Glam, WikiEdu, whatever), there is no indication that the categories are in most cases indeed "helpful to Rachel and her students" as they don't seem to have revisited the articles after tagging them (e.g. Robert Estienne was BYU edited in 2019, BYU tagged in 2021, and then nothing). Basically, if they want to have their paid editing scrutinized, they can put a tag on the talk page, as is customary, and where people might perhaps understand what the relevance of the BYU tag is instead of having an obscure category. Fram (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, we can see in the page history of every article if User:Rachel Helps (BYU) made edits and if so which, but we do not have a clue which editors are students of hers. And even we would know, how would the community benefit from knowing this? Every individual editor is responsible for their own edits, we can't keep Rachel Helps accountable for her students' work. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Opppose strongly. Hidden categories useful for editors are permitted on Wikipedia. Deletion of this category would make it much more difficult for editors who value the Wikipedian-in-residence work of Rachel Helps (BYU) and her student employees but nevertheless want to wisely pay attention and help them maintain a WP:NPOV in articles to do the latter. Because my interest in American history and books crossovers with some of the Mormon studies/American West articles that the Harold B. Lee Library students participate in editing, I use this category to be aware of and follow their contributions. These categories don't harm readers, as Vaereee observed. Fram says the categories {{tq|pollute the already often overcrowded hidden categories}}, but their hiddenness addresses that. Fram says that adding a tag to the talk page is another option, but that is only visible if one happens to be on that specific article's talk page and doesn't make it possible for me as an editor to look at a large span of articles that BYU Library employees have been involved in such that I can navigate by topic, time period, etc. I don't know as many sources about film, for instance, but I know a lot of sources about the 19th and 20th centuries, so I can use those categories to navigate to articles that I feel up to the task of being mindful of. The transparency these categories generate are a large part of how I have gained confidence in the usefulness of Rachel Helps (BYU)'s Wikipedian-in-residence work. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Deleting the cat pages isn't the way to go about this. If we want the cats out of the mainspace (I've no strong opinion about that), then we can set up a Template:WPBannerMeta for Wikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee Library (which already is a WP:WikiProject, i.e., "a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia"; the page name isn't what defines a WikiProject), so that it uses these existing categories and puts them on the article talk pages instead of as hidden maintenance categories. Deleting these cat pages is not necessary to achieve the apparent goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 13 March 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Brooklyn Robins executives to :Category:Brooklyn Dodgers executives

:Nominator's rationale: Only one article; all Dodgers executives from their time in Brooklyn, regardless of name of team at the time, are listed in :Category:Brooklyn Dodgers executives. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

::Merge per nom. Let'srun (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Boston Rustlers seasons to :Category:Boston Braves seasons

:* Propose merging :Category:Boston Red Stockings seasons to :Category:Boston Braves seasons

:* Propose merging :Category:Boston Red Caps seasons to :Category:Boston Braves seasons

:* Propose merging :Category:Boston Doves seasons to :Category:Boston Braves seasons

:* Propose merging :Category:Boston Bees seasons to :Category:Boston Braves seasons

:* Propose merging :Category:Boston Beaneaters seasons to :Category:Boston Braves seasons

:* Propose merging :Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays seasons to :Category:Tampa Bay Rays seasons

:Nominator's rationale: Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

:Nominator's rationale: Merge for consistancy and per WP:NARROWCAT. Seasons are categorized by cities, not by name changes. For example, there isn't a seperate categories for the Boston Americans (Red Sox) or the New York Highlanders (Yankees). Also categories with their own season categories also have their own categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

::@Eureka Lott, @Namiba, pinging from previous related Cfd. These are similar to the Cleveland category in that the name changed while they remained in the city, not due to a move. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. It doesn't aid navigation to have micro-categories for each team nickname.--User:Namiba 01:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Merge all per nom. - Eureka Lott 14:21, 20 March 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Phillipstown, New Zealand}}

:Nominator's rationale: A small suburb of Christchurch, New Zealand. The only suburb of Christchurch to have its own category - containing just two articles and with little likelihood of expansion (fewer than 40 articles on Wikipedia even mention Phillipstown - despite it being on a navbox of Christchurch suburbs). The only other suburbs of New Zealand cities with their own categories have substantial numbers of articles. Grutness...wha? 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nurg (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Defunct companies of Grenada to :Category:History of Grenada

:Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Lists of marchionesses to :Category:Lists of nobility and :Category:Lists of women

:Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. Only one page in here, already in a child category of Marchionesses Mason (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just delete, the article is already in :Category:Lists of Italian nobility and :Category:Lists of duchesses, making the merge targets redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Camp Lejeune Marines football seasons to :Category:Camp Lejeune Marines football

:Nominator's rationale: Only one page in the category. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2024 (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:Gibraltarian scientists and populate. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Gibraltarian ornithologists to :Category:Gibraltarian scientists

:Nominator's rationale: I think we should expand the scope of this category, so that it has the potential to be populated beyond a single person Mason (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:British ornithologists, unless there a few more articles that could be added to :Category:Gibraltarian scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Rename, There are a few others - Geraldine Finlayson, Anne O'Garra, Barry Azzopardi, and William Penney, Baron Penney would take the total up to at least five... Grutness...wha? 12:40, 13 March 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Gibraltarian taxi drivers to :Category:British taxi drivers

:* Propose merging :Category:Gibraltarian classical musicians by instrument to :Category:Gibraltarian classical musicians

:* Propose splitting :Category:20th-century Gibraltarian painters to :Category:Gibraltarian painters and :Category:20th-century Gibraltarian people

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one category/page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2024 (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.